Preamble

Morning Sitting

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Ten o'clock a.m.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

10.0 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skeffington.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington) rose—

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: The Minister of State had just finished speaking last night—or, at least, there was some indication that he had finished— and I would like the opportunity to reply to what he said before the Joint Parliamentary Secretary deals with this matter.
Last night, at an early hour, the Minister of State, dealing with this new Clause, said that it was a complicated and difficult matter and that we would all benefit from the opportunity to sleep on it. He said,
… partly for that reason, and partly for others, I beg to move, That the Proceedings of this day's Sitting be suspended.
I well understand that this is a difficult and complex matter. So are all the Clauses brought before the House on this Bill. That is what I was complaining about yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot accept that Motion at this stage.

Mr. Rippon: There is no Motion, Mr. Speaker. I am simply talking about the new Clause. The Minister of State last night suspended the Sitting while we were in the middle of discussing the new Clause. He said that he was moving the suspension partly because it was a difficult and complicated matter and partly for other reasons. I wish to deal first of all with the idea that it is a complicated and difficult matter and his suggestion that we should sleep on it. I accept that view, but I complained bitterly yesterday

about the way in which 52 pages of new Clauses and Amendments were brought before the House without adequate opportunity to discuss them. Then I had not the slightest idea that the Government would outrageously curtail discussion last night—not because the matter was difficult and complicated but for other reasons.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate now something that could not debate last night. We must get on with the debate on new Clause 14.

Mr. Skeffington: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that you called me on the resumption. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I courteously gave way to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) because I thought he was raising a point of order. May I ask whether you did call me to continue the debate?

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and he gave way to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon).

Mr. Rippon: We do not know what other reasons the Minister of State had in mind. What are they? I believe that the Government simply had to give way to the payroll vote on which they depend.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We suspended the Sitting on a Motion which was undebatable. We cannot debate on new Clause 14 this morning a Motion which was undebatable last night. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must address himself to the new Clause.

Mr. Rippon: The Minister of State said that he had other reasons for allowing us to sleep on the matter. I think that we are entitled to know what these other reasons were. This has nothing to do with the Motion to suspend, which we could not debate. What the hon. and learned Gentleman really meant was that his hon. Friends did not want to sit late to continue the debate. Right hon. and hon. Members on this side did.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must take note of what the Chair has said. Under the Sessional Order, the suspension last night was undebatable. We cannot resume the
 

Sitting by debating what was undebatable last night. The Question before the House is, That the Clause be read a Second time, and that is what we are debating.

Mr. Rippon: I still wish to discuss this new Clause and the way in which the Government have dealt with the matter. It is an extremely complicated and difficult position. I hope, therefore, that the Government will allow a very long debate on the matter now so that we can keep things going until those hon. Members who find it inconvenient to be here this morning because they imagined that the debate would go on last night are able to come and explain why they think the matter should be dealt with at the present stage. I am sorry that I find such difficulty in containing my indignation at the way in which the Government treat the House and I appreciate the difficulty you are in, Mr. Speaker. We get no help on this side of the House from the Leader of the House or from the Patronage Secretary. They are concerned with suppressing the rights of minorities.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no opinion on the views the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to express but he cannot express them on this Motion. We are debating whether the Clause should be read a Second time.

Mr. Rippon: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I understand that, under the Standing Orders which the Government have imposed, not even the Chair can protect minorities in this Parliament.
Having registered the strongest protest I can at the way in which we have been treated, I come to the new Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) dealt at some length with the complications which have arisen as a result of recent legal decisions. Perhaps I may follow the matter up by quoting from the Solicitors' Journal of 10th May, 1968 at page 361. The article is headed, "Permission or nothing". It says:
The decision of Lyell J. in Kingsway Investment (Kent) Ltd. v. Kent County Council, which we report on p. 379, seems to have caused a good deal of alarm and despondency, and many people may be wondering whether they hold a good planning

permission or just a piece of paper worth nothing. In this case the council had granted in 1952 outline planning permission for developing Trosley Towers Estate subject to a condition that the permission would cease to have effect if approval of the details had not been notified within 3 years, the reason for the condition being to prevent the accumulation of permissions in respect of which no details had been submitted. Lyell J. held the condition to be void because it made no provision to cover the time required for an appeal to the Minister of Housing and Local Government if the council refused approval, and he further held that the permission was not severable, so that it too was void and fell with the condition. The decision is subject to appeal. It appears that a similar condition had been imposed on all outline permissions granted by Kent since 1950. The same may have happened elsewhere.
It goes on to put a number of questions which we hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to answer:
Do people who have developed on the faith of such a permission now have unauthorised development? If they have such a permission but have not yet developed what should they do? Is liability to betterment levy effected? Not to worry, seems the answer to all these questions. First, as long ago as 1950 the then Ministry of Town and Country Planning issued a circular, No. 87, saying that it would be reasonable, in appropriate cases, to impose a condition requiring the submission of details for approval within, say, 3 years to prevent the accumulation of permissions. Such a condition, probably used by many planning authorities, simply requiring submission, as distinct from approval, in three years is good under the Kent decision. Secondly, if development has been carried out under a 'bad' Kent type permission it is inconceivable that enforcement proceedings would be taken, or, if taken, would be successful (the words of Lord Denning M.R., referred to in the article 'Planners Estopped' at p. 304 ante seem appropriate). Thirdly, if one has such permission, there seems no reason why one should not submit the details within the specified period and, if granted, start work; the authority could hardly be heard to say the permission was void, and the court, in its discretion, would surely not grant them a declaration that it was. The decision could not affect betterment levy; in cases A and B it is governed by the consideration, not planning permission; in case C the market value is calculated on the basis that planning permission is in force for the relevant development whether or not it has actually been granted. Planning law seems to get curiouser and curiouser.
That is from the legal point of view. The ordinary citizen is affected in an absolutely deplorable way from his point of view as a result of the present state of the law. The new Clause is designed to take the first possible opportunity to cure this mischief.
It is not enough under this Government to rely on any advice that might be given in circulars. I have warned local authorities and I warn them again today not to bow down meekly to circulars of exhortation from Whitehall issued by a Government who are without authority and whose actions are arbitrary, dictatorial and bloody-minded, as I said last night. It is not good enough for them to be asked to accept the advice contained in circulars issued by the Government because the word of the Government is not trusted anywhere in Britain. The electors have shown clearly that they despise and distrust this Government, who are kept in office simply by a pay-roll vote. I therefore—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may or may not be true, but I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are discussing the new Clause.

Mr. Rippon: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was again carried away.
It is no good the Government trying to deal with these matters by way of circulars. If they want to impose their will on the country, they must do it clearly by statute. This new Clause is vital and we will not be satisfied merely with assurances about the Government's intention to look at the matter further. They promised that when we were debating the Countryside Bill and they said it about the Gosling Report. We do not trust assurances given by this Government, particularly when they say that they will look at a matter and do something about it.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that there was a good deal of disputation a few days ago about increases in solicitors' charges? Is not that the real reason for the Clause, in that we must be more precise and definitive in our planning law, rather than leave the matter to specious circulars of the Ministry which solicitors find it near impossible correctly to interpret?

Mr. Rippon: I entirely agree. As the Solicitors' Journal explains, this branch of the law is getting "curiouser and curiouser." That may be a nice view to express in an editorial, but for the practising solicitor and his client the law is, in fact, becoming more and more complex. As the Dail Mail said today,

one must be a legal wizard as well as a memory man to understand what one must do today to protect one's rights under the laws which are manifestly completely obscure and likely to be extremely detrimental to a large number of citizens, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby made clear last night. There is no doubt that the time of a great many members of the legal profession is taken up to an incredible extent by having to study this complex and difficult legislation which we are given so little time to debate in the House and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. From what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said earlier, we are debating an apparently simple Clause.

Mr. Rippon: It is true that we are debating a single Clause, but it affects the rights of the citizen—

Mr. Skeffington: Mr. Speaker said "simple" rather than "single".

Mr. Rippon: It is not really simple. As the Minister said last night, so complex is the matter that we should sleep on it. We have slept on it and our indignation is now unbounded, and the more we study the Clause and the Minister's unsatisfactory answer the more we are determined to do everything in our power to see that it is incorporated in the Bill. We will not be satisfied with assurances from the hon. and learned Gentleman that the issue will be looked at elsewhere. The position of many citizens under existing planning permissions will remain obscure, their rights will be undetermined and their financial position may be seriously affected if we do not press this matter.
10.15 a.m.
As the Solicitors' Journal went on:
If the condition had required the work to be started within the three years it would have been good, even though this would necessarily have required the details to be approved within this period (s. 18(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962); That is, unless words are to be implied into the section requiring the period specified to commence with any decision of the Minister on appeal from an approval of details.
The Solicitors' Journal did not deal with a matter of equal importance; the difficulty that will arise in regard to the payment of compensation when planning permission is revoked. Normally when


a planning permission is revoked the applicant has a right to compensation. His position will be intolerable in the light of the Trosley Towers decision because where a condition is found to be void and the planning permission void as well, no question of revocation will arise and there will be no question of the payment of compensation.
These matters should be dealt with urgently by the House. They are causing great concern to my hon. Friends and we demand that the Government take action without delay. The Minister has now had an opportunity of sleeping on the matter. I presume, from what he said last night, that he meant that he had been taken aback, as it were, by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, had been surprised by his argument and needed to consult his advisors on the full legal implications of what he admitted was, and what we concede to be, a complicated matter. I hope, therefore, that we will receive firm assurances from the Government on this subject.
There is a report in the Solicitors' Journal about the case to which I referred. It would not be right for me to go into detail about the legal complexities involved in this matter, although some of my hon. Friends may wish to discuss the points further. This case is a very good illustration of how, with the best will in the world, loopholes can emerge and difficulties arise when drafting legislation. That is why we cannot afford to let these matters simply pass. The Clause is short and straightforward and the Government should have no difficulty in accepting it. Their acceptance of it would represent their intention to deal with the issue expeditiously. Having accepted it, they could later deal not only with the simple proposition in the Clause but with other legal and ancillary matters.
In a complicated matter of this kind it is not easy for the Opposition to draft a new Clause which does much more than draw attention to the mischief. It will, therefore, not be satisfactory for the Minister simply to say that the Clause does not cover everything because we admit that it does not deal with all the implications of recent judicial decisions. The case of Kingsway Investments (Kent)

Ltd. v. Kent County Council has spotlighted a real difficulty that should be dealt with at once. Other matters of concern arise out of it and a careful study of the judgments in the case shows that probably a considerable amendment of the law may be necessary if we are to deal not only with the validity of a planning permission and a condition which may be attached to it—and the extent to which the two matters must be considered together—but also fully consider the effect on compensation if a planning permission which would otherwise have had to be revoked is simply found to be void.
We certainly would give every help to the Government, here or in another place, in any effort they may make to draft a new Clause in rather fuller terms. We ought not to let slip the opportunity which is afforded by a Measure of this kind to tidy up the law on town and country planning to the fullest possible extent. With the best will in the world a Government can give assurances that they will introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity, but with this Government the legislative programme is so grossly and scandalously overcrowded that it could be some time before the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary could allow the Minister to bring forward another Measure on this subject.
It may be several years before a new Town and Country Planning Bill is introduced. That Bill would be introduced by a Conservative Government, but we too would have problems in clearing up the mess left behind by this Government. We could not promise that all the Measures to repeal or amend Acts passed in this Parliament could be dealt with in the first Session. Therefore, it might be some time before we have a legislative opportunity to put forward this type of Clause again.
While we are waiting for the Government to draft a Clause to meet the situation satisfactorily, we shall face a number of other cases of the Trosley Towers type. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby pointed out yesterday, so long as this law remains on the Statute Book the local authorities have no discretion in the matter. If no compensation is payable because a planning permission has been voided instead of simply being revoked, they will not be able to pay


compensation. That will be according to statute because no compensation will be payable.
They might apply to the Minister to make ex gratia payments, but we know the difficulties which would then arise. The Treasury would bring forward the old argument and doctrine about ex gratia payments. There might be a number of payments of a similar kind which local planning authorities would request permisison to make, but the Government would be reluctant to allow a local planning authority to incur an open-ended payment which would be difficult to evaluate.
All this makes it imperative that we should deal with this matter under this Clause. We cannot leave the position as it is. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said yesterday—and I have only the report in The Times this morning from which to quote:
However unfair it may seem that a public authority should take advantage in that way, a public authority is a trustee for all its citizens and should act according to the law and for their best benefits. If it thinks it is for the benefit of all the citizens that a planning permission should be treated as invalid and revoked, it should do so regardless of what may seem unfair to the individual.
But if the law was on the side of the public authority it should not act to the detriment of the majority of its citizens. At this stage Parliament should step in and put the law right.
The Minister of State concedes that there is force in my hon. Friend's argument. He said:
It would be wrong for developers to lose the benefit of this outline planning permission merely because of the defect in the condition.
But then he went on to qualify what is a simple and straightforward problem and said:
It does not follow from that that they should have the benefit of such permissions without any conditions at all and I think that would be the effect of his new clause.
But it is a complicated and difficult matter and we would all benefit from the opportunity to sleep on it.
We have to take great care in drafting a new Clause of this kind and putting it into the Bill to see that we do not create a situation in which we remedy a mischief which has been found to exist in the present law and which the courts have revealed but at the same time create a situation in which we cannot

have conditions attached to planning permissions at all. There are many cases in which a planning permission is given with conditions attached to it. Those conditions which are attached relate to a number of matters which I need not go into in detail because the last thing I want to do is to weary the House in any way on this matter.
The condition we are worried about is the condition as to limitation of time. No doubt, there will be other opportunities, as we consider other new Clauses and Amendments, to talk more about the limitations on time which should be attached to planning permissions. I hope the Minister of State understands—although he did not appear to last night— that we are not suggesting that under no circumstances should there be any limitation on time. This has to be operated very flexibly. Whatever limitation there is on time or otherwise, it should not void the planning permission itself and so leave the applicant in a wholly unsatisfactory position. Then, not only would the development be stopped and he would have incurred a great deal of abortive expenditure, but as the law stands there is a real danger that he would not get compensation at all. He cannot get it on the condition that the permission will be revoked if the permission is voided. That is a very serious matter and it has to be faced.
I do not want to go into the merits of the Trosley Towers decision as a decision of the local planning authority in the first instance. It has been a very controversial matter over a long period. It has bothered a series of Governments and a series of Ministers who sought to deal with a situation in which there was genuine feeling that a planning permission had been given which perhaps ought not to have been given but where the cost of revoking it would be extremely high. Therefore, all the pressures from the Treasury and others have perhaps been, "We had better hold off it because it is costly to revoke it."
Where something which is believed to have been detrimental to the ratepayers has been done the local planning authority, whatever the expense, has a clear duty to revoke that decision in the public interest. It may be that the Government ought to find some way of giving the local planning authority a much more


substantial grant to help it in a situation of that kind. This Clause might be adapted to make provision whereby any costs of revoking permissions could be borne partly by the Government and partly by the local authority.
We are not disputing the merits of this decision or others of a like kind which may arise. We are saying that the local authority must have power to revoke and that if this gives rise to compensation which is paid on a proper basis there can be no complaint from anyone. But no one foresaw a situation in which the discussion on the argument of the validity of the planning permission would fall to the ground because of the success of the argument that the condition relating to time was void. It was a shocking situation to have arisen.
In this case the difficulty was that Kent County Council granted outline planning permission in 1952 and that permission had a condition attached that it should cease to have effect if approval had not been granted within three years. The council decided not to extend beyond 1952. Certain difficulties arise when a county council or other planning authority imposes conditions as to time and frustrates a development by adhering to that or other conditions attached to the planning permission.
All these matters have to be looked at carefully. I do not think there is anything in this new Clause which undermines the fundamental town and country planning policy which we, equally with hon. Members opposite, wish to uphold to the utmost of our ability. We do not want to create a situation in which we so amend the law that a local planning authority cannot attach conditions to a permission. We do not want to deprive a local planning authority of the right, if it thinks it has made a mistake, to revoke a permission, provided always that it pays proper compensation for having made the mistake in the same way as ordinary members of the community if they make mistakes in their business or private lives have to pay for them. If one makes a bad bargain, one has to pay the cost.
10.30 a.m.
This we perfectly well understand. It may, therefore, be said that the new

Clause is directed to a comparatively limited problem. This is not so. What I fear is that there may be a number of other cases which will immediately arise as soon as local authorities or planning authorities read the law report. They have always been afraid that some of their conditions were void and therefore they have not pressed them, but from time to time applicants, particularly those without much money, have accepted those conditions, and therefore the matter has not arisen in the courts. As soon as local planning authorities realise that now, if they have attached a void condition, they can rely on the invalidity of the condition which they themselves have attached to the planning permission, simply in order to cancel that planning permission without compensation, an absolutely intolerable situation might arise.
Now that the majority of local authorities are in good and proper Conservative hands, and there is a bare minimum of Socialist local authorities, the opportunities for injustice are thereby, I hope, considerably removed, but this is a very technical matter. In the case of the Kent County Council the members of the council, who of course had no idea of the way in which this case would be decided, and who, no doubt, were perfectly prepared to pay, if only the permission were revoked, the proper rate of compensation, now find themselves, as my hon. Friend says, in the position that, with the best will in the world, the planning permission having been voided at the same time as the condition, they have no right to pay compensation. Therefore, the vast majority of authorities, which are in good and proper Conservative hands, even if they want to do justice, are prevented from doing so. One reason why it may be necessary to have this Clause is in order to protect local authorities against charges that may be made against them by malicious hon. Members opposite that they are refusing to pay compensation in proper cases out of malice, whereas, of course, they will be refusing to pay compensation, not out of malice, but out of the state of the law.
The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say laughingly that


the Kent County Council was Conservative, and then refuse to accept the Clause which will enable the Kent County Council and all other local authorities to deal with a difficult case in a right and proper manner. I am sure the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary, who are both reasonable men, will see the force of this argument and yield to it.
I certainly hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will explain in some detail what the Minister of State meant, while conceding the main point of my hon. Friend's argument, when he went on to say:
Equally, on the other hand, it does not follow from that that they should have the benefit of such permissions without any condition at all and I think that would be the effect of his new Clause.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will explain whatever defect he and his colleagues and the officials in the Ministry think are in the Clause. We would quite readily accept any advice that they can give us on a matter of drafting. We find some difficulty in seeing what problem arises, but evidently the Minister of State has had some discussion, otherwise he would not have been in a position to say that he thought this difficulty arose. I hope that we will have the benefit of those discussions which the Minister has had with his colleagues, both in the Government and in the Ministry, so that we will know what is their thinking on that matter.
It would also be helpful to know what further difficulties the Minister envisages will arise out of this case. It is a matter which has given us on this side of the House deep concern. As soon as we read the judgment, we realised the full implications and I would be astonished if the Ministry did not as well.
I will indicate one or two of the matters which arise out of the case and which may be the reason why the Minister of State said that our Clause did not take into account the full effect of the situation and might result in our creating a legal situation where planning permissions could not have any conditions at all attached to them. The Solicitors' Journal at page 379 on 10th May summarises the position rather well. Rather than that I should try to

do this myself, I will give what is a reasonably authorised version and a reasonably short report of the case. There will be available lengthier reports in The Times Law Reports and subsequently, no doubt, in the Law Reports, but I do not think anyone will suggest that what I shall now refer to is in any way inaccurate or fails to summarise the position reasonably well.
The heading is:
Outline planning permission: condition that permission ceases to have effect after stated time unless grantor's approval of detailed plans obtained: no provision preventing time elapsing pending Minister's determination of appeal on question of approval: whether condition and permission void.
The facts of the Trosley Tower case were apparently these:
In 1952 an application for outline planning permission of an estate was granted by a local planning authority subject to conditions that (i) details of proposed buildings and means of access should be submitted to and approved by the authority before any works were begun, and '(ii) the permission shall cease to have effect after the expiration of three years unless within that time approval has been notified to those matters referred to in condition (i) above'. By successive agreements in writing the time was extended; details were submitted but not approved, and extension of time beyond September 1962 was refused. By writ in January 1966 the freeholders of part of the estate began an action for declarations that condition (ii) was void (as being ultra vires and unreasonable), and that the permission still subsisted. They contended inter alia that no time being limited by S.16 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 and the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1950. (S.I. No. 728) for the Minister to determine an appeal on the question of approval, and condition (ii) not making provision for what was to occur if an appeal was pending when the time elapsed, on the strict wording of the condition an appeal would fall with the condition, because the subject matter was at an end so that the condition derogated from a right of appeal given by S.16 and nullified the effect of a successful appeal by robbing the grantee of a right given by the 1950 Order. The defendants contended inter alia that condition (ii) contained, after 'three years', the implied further words, 'and such time thereafter as is necessary for the Minister to determine any appeal', and conceded that they had made a mistake, so that, unless it could be corrected by implication of the further words, the condition was ultra vires."
That makes it clear that the Minister of State was perfectly right when he said that this was a difficult and complex matter. It is a difficult and complex


matter, but it is one that must be resolved in view of what Mr. Justice Lyell had to say. He found, if I may summarise the position broadly:
… that condition (ii) could not be construed to imply the further words; had they been contained in the condition it would have been valid, but solely on the ground that no provision was made to coyer the time required for an appeal to the Minister condition (ii) was ultra vires and void. Taking into consideration, Pyx Granite Co. Ltd. v. Minister of Housing and Local Government [1958] 1 Q.B. 554, Hall &amp; Co. Ltd. v. Shoreham Urban District Council [1964] 1 W.L.R. 240, and Allnatt London Properties Ltd. v. Middlesex County Council [1964] 62 L.G.R. 304, condition (ii) was incapable of being severed and the permission was void in toto, so that the declaration that the permission still subsisted would be refused.
It was in those circumstances that the declarations were made accordingly.
It is true that the matter came before the courts only very recently. But there is no doubt of the astonished reaction in legal and planning circles to the decision. It has caused considerable consternation at the town planning Bar. The Town and Country Planning Association and other bodies have been considering its implications. But we all look, as we must in matters of this kind, to the Government to redress the mischief that has been created. We do not blame them for it. I am perfectly prepared to concede that defects in Conservative as well as Socialist legislation led to the problem.
There has been no ill-will or malice on the part of the Kent County Council. We are not suggesting that the local planning authority acted improperly in resisting the matter in the courts or trying to establish what the law is. All concerned behaved throughout as they see it in accordance with their public or private duties.
We want to establish the law in the best way we can. When a mischief such as this is discovered which strikes seriously at the rights of individuals, Parliament must take the first opportunity to put the matter right. Even at a late hour last night, with hon. Members opposite so jaded that they need a little sleep, I should have thought that the Minister of State, who has clearly been studying the matter for some time and has had discussions with his officials, could say that the Government accepted

the Clause. He could have said that they had certain difficulties over its drafting but would be happy to discuss it with us to see if we could arrive at a solution. We should have been happy to stay here all last night in a private room with the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary trying to work out a solution to what is admittedly a complex and difficult problem.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not say, as his hon. and learned Friend did last night, that it is a complex and difficult problem and that the Government see the force of my hon. Friend's argument and are prepared to study it. The way in which the Clause is drafted is complex and difficult, but its purpose is simple—to remedy an injustice and a difficulty which the courts have exposed. It is very fortunate that we have an opportunity so soon after the case was decided to put the matter right. If we had not had it, and if there were a number of similar cases in the rest of the country, the Government might have had to introduce a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill to deal with the problem and any ancillary problems which might appear to arise from the decision.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could read out to us a draft of the Clause which the Government have in mind to overcome the sort of problem to which the Minister of State referred last night. We should certainly consider any such drafting very sympathetically. We do not want to make the problems of the local planning authorities any more difficult. We do not want to create a situation in which bad development is allowed to continue where a mistake is made. But we want to protect the public and the applicant. In the case to which I have referred rights of individuals are very seriously affected.
The Parliamentary Secretary has great connections with Kent and knows very well the circumstances of the Trosley Towers case. He may be able to tell us that it is not likely to arise again in that form, that he can think of no other case that is likely to arise anywhere else in the country. It would be helpful if he could tell us that, and that the Government were prepared to deal with it and any problems of compensation payment on an ex gratia basis. That


might justify some delay on the Government's pant, but I can only think that it would be justified in such very special circumstances.
We cannot justify it if there is any possibility of local planning authorities feeling that they must revoke permissions because they think that a mistake has been made, and must then accept under the present Government that the law as it stands means that they cannot pay compensation. It is certainly their duty to their ratepayers to carry out their town and country planning functions under the Statute as strictly as the law requires. It is our business in Parliament to see that the law is so drafted that justice is done and a proper balance can be achieved between the rights, duties and responsibilities of the local planning authority and the developer's right to carry out the development in a sensible and orderly way.
10.45 a.m.
The Minister's objections that the Clause would limit to some extent the rights of local planning authorities to impose conditions with which it is very difficult for an applicant to comply, or which the local planning authority can use as an excuse to delay the development to the point where it can avoid the planning permission, are not well-founded. Perhaps we should take the opportunity in a Clause of this kind to delineate more particularly the sort of conditions a local planning authority could properly apply to a planning permission. The sort of conditions I have in mind are those related to the design of the building—not in too detailed a sense, but in a general sense—lay-out, tree planting and matters of that kind—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am following the right hon. and learned Gentleman with interest, but he cannot discuss some other Clause with this one.

Mr. Rippon: I was dealing not with another Clause, Mr. Speaker, but the Government's objection last night that the Clause, as drafted, might give a developer the benefit of permission without any conditions at all. I deny that. Perhaps I should have dealt with this matter rather more fully. I do not think that the effect of the Clause will be to interfere in any way with a local

planning authority's right to attach proper conditions to a planning permission. We on this side of the House are not complaining about appropriate conditions. If the Minister says that the Clause has the effect that there will be no conditions, I agree that an Amendment might be necessary either now or in another place. But we do not trust the Government so much that we shall accept an assurance. We want them to accept the Clause as it stands, though we would expedite, so far as is in our power, the introduction of Amendments to it later.
Do the Government believe that the Clause has the effect of eliminating the right of a planning authority to impose any conditions or simply to eliminate certain conditions? If it eliminated a condition of the sort which arose in the Trosley Towers case—a limitation of time by which the local planning authority might frustrate development in such a way that it could then void the planning permission instead of revoking it, and thereby avoid payment of compensation —our Clause should stand in any event. If it has simply that effect of dealing with the mischief revealed in the Trosley Towers case, the Minister's argument is not valid.
I do not think that it follows from anything I say this morning that we need any new Clause other than that we are now considering. It deals with all the matters which arose in the Trosley Towers case. It deals with the mischief so manifestly revealed by the courts without detracting in any way from the statutory rights, duties and responsibilities of the local planning authorities to strike the proper balance between the interests of the general public in good planning and the interests of the individual applicant who, in all good faith, makes a planning application which is accepted by the local planning authority and goes ahead with the work in the belief that nothing the local planning authority does will so frustrate him by the application of any conditions attached to it as to deprive him of all right to compensation in the circumstances which arose in that case. As I said, I do not dissent from the Minister's view that it is a complicated and difficult matter. I hope, therefore, that the House will understand why—

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman repeating arguments at least three times? He has referred, in one form or another, to the balance between local authorities and the central Government. Is it not obvious that he is now guilty of undue repetition of the arguments involved in the Trosley Towers case?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair has to decide when an hon. Member not only repeats arguments, but has become tedious. The Chair must decide when an hon. Member is engaged in tedious repetition.

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful for your ruling on the matter, Mr. Speaker. I have done my best, given that the Minister of State says that it is an extremely difficult and complex matter, not to go into too much detail. We are discussing matters of grave importance to the individual citizen. It may ruin some people who have acted in good faith concerning planning permission who find, when it is voided, that they get no compensation for the action of the local planning authority, and the local planning authority cannot do anything about it because the law does not enable it to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member is now repeating an argument which he has made several times.

Mr. Rippon: It must not be thought that we are trying to hold up the work of the House in any way. We are doing our best to simplify and explain a detailed matter. I have not dealt with a fuller report of the case. Perhaps I should have done. I thought that it would be sufficient for our purposes to deal with the report of the case in The Solicitors' Journal which gives the main facts and considerations of law which apply. If, by doing that, I have not succeeded in convincing hon. Gentlemen opposite of the importance of the matter, I am very distressed. We must accept, and I certainly accept, that in—

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: On a point of order. I am glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend say this. I think that a fuller exposition of this case would be very welcome. It is extremely complex, and we have not had the benefit of hearing the argument

before. We have merely had this brief report from The Solicitors' Journal. A fuller explanation would be helpful.

Mr. Speaker: I can understand the interest of the hon. Member, but his right hon. and learned Friend will conduct his speech in his own way.

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful both to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my hon. Friend who was trying to be helpful. I apologise to him and to the House if I have failed to go into the matter in sufficient depth. I can assure the House that we will try to get a fuller report of the case. I am trying to present the broad statement of policy for the Opposition. I will leave my hon. Friends subsequently to raise some of the more specific points of detail which necessarily arise in considering this difficult and complex matter.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that, to laymen like myself, his somewhat attenuated explanation of what occurred in the courts did not make the position abundantly clear? The Liberal bench was empty and that party did not, therefore, have the benefit of his advice. The sole occupant of the Liberal bench has just arrived. I am sure that he wishes further and better particulars of the court proceedings. Will my right hon. and learned Friend be more expansive in this context?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member's right hon. and learned Friend were more expansive, the Chair would be a little more contractive.

Mr. Rippon: I understand your view in this regard, Mr. Speaker. It certainly would be out of order, wearisome and tedious repetition if I informed the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) of all that I had said before he came into the Chamber. It is fair to say that he has been most assiduous in his attend-dance. He represents a higher proportion of the Liberal Party attending our discussions than the Government, who are thinly represented on these matters. The Liberal Party tries, as we do, to defend the rights of individual citizens against the over-mighty Whitehall machine.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member must come back to the Clause.

Mr. Rippon: I apologise for the diversion, but I felt it was fair to the hon. Member for Orpington that his position should be clarified. I will not repeat what I have said about this matter. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Orpington and other right hon. and hon. Members will have an early opportunity to study the case of Kingsway Investments (Kent) Ltd. v. Kent County Council.
I hope that others of my hon. Friends will follow up and reinforce the points I have made. I am not one lone Member raising a point about which I happen to feel some interest. It is a matter which raises widespread interest on these benches. I had hoped that more of my hon. Friends would be here by now. They were all waiting to speak last night, but they have other engagements this morning. I apprehend that they are trying to create a situation whereby they can come back and carry on with the proceedings.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must resist temptation..

Mr. Rippon: One thing I cannot resist is temptation, Mr. Speaker. That is a defect which I will try to remedy. I apologise.
We must try to elucidate these matters as quickly as possible. We will do our best, but I am bound to say that I was very disappointed in the Minister's reply last night. I hope I have raised enough questions for the Minister to give a full reply and to state in particular what he thinks is the effect of the recent decision of the courts, what action the Government propose to take, why he thinks that our Clause is defective, and, if it is defective, whether the Government will accept it as it stands. That will be the best possible assurance of their good faith in the matter, because there will be nothing to prevent them providing the necessary elaboration at a later stage.

Mr. Skeffington: It may be for the convenience of the House if I reply to some of the points which have been made. The House will not expect me to follow the rather melodramatic and histrionic parts of the introductory portion of the speech of the right hon. and

learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). There were points in the latter part of his argument which require a reply, and I shall deal with those points in the course of my remarks.
Whatever the situation may be, this debate has given us the opportunity of hearing the right hon. and learned Gentleman speak for 55 minutes this morning—24 minutes longer than he spoke on Second Reading. The House will be able to weigh up the two contributions he has made and decide which is the more valuable. I have no doubt about which was the more valuable contribution.
First, I will deal with the important points put by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). To get the record straight, I should say that the condition which was inserted into the planning permission, the subject of the action which has given rise to the new Clause, was not a condition that derived directly or in terms from any circular issued by the Ministry. The hon. Member for Crosby thought that it was. The relevant paragraph of Planning Circular No. 87, issued in May, 1950, reads:
It is, however, suggested that it would be reasonable, in order to prevent the accumulation of permissions in respect of which no plans have been submitted for approval, to attach a condition to permissions of this type requiring that the plans shall be submitted within a period, e.g. three years.
The word there is "submitted", not "approved". The submission of the plan is within the control of the developer. I have little doubt that had those words been used in the case to which reference has been made, we should have been saved a good deal of consideration. Submission is a matter which a developer can control, but the approval is a matter within the control of the local planning authority. I should get this straight, because local planning authorities may have felt that the Ministry's guidance was wrong, whereas it was not. The High Court decision—

11.0 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the Circular, would he not agree that it would be easier if these things were embodied in a Statute so that there was no difficulty?

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Gentleman, who has a great interest in these matters, will surely realise that the amount of detail which can be put into legislation is limited. If there is to be any flexibilty in applying planning, there must be general guidance. Anyone with experience in planning matters realises that though one must include in a Statute those provisions which confer rights and obligations on parties, conditions, because of their infinite variety, are a matter for guidance.
What the hon. Gentleman has not appreciated is that, if a condition is put in a planning permission but is felt to be onerous or unfair, the applicant can appeal to the Minister on the condition itself. This matter is better left like that. Hon. Gentlemen may complain about the length of planning Statutes but if one were to try to cover every conceivable factor, there would be no limitation at all upon them—

Sir G. Nabarro: Sir G. Nabarro rose—[Interruption.]: Perhaps the Minister of State would stop mumbling when his colleague has given way to me.

I want to ask a perfectly explicit question. How can a would-be developer possibly know the contents of a Ministerial circular to a local authority?

Mr. Skeffington: I have great respect for the knowledge of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) in many fields, but he is probably not aware of the procedures followed here. There are issued, by the Ministry and other bodies advising developers, bulletins, decisions on planning cases and helpful guidance, which the practitioners tell me that they find of the greatest assistance.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: It is not good enough—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The Parliamentary Secretary is not giving way.

Sir G. Nabarro: Well, would he give way now? Why is he being so dogmatic?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skeffington: It would probably be convenient to the House and fair to myself if I were allowed to answer the points seriously put by the hon. Member for Crosby. I have dealt with his reference to the circular which might have been thought to mislead either this authority or others.
He next suggested that, as a result of this case, a large number of permissions are jeopardised or subject to uncertainty. We have made some inquiries about this. I cannot yet say precisely what the conclusion will be, because we are still receiving information, but the number of cases which might be vulnerable to the enforcement procedure—this is the crux of the new Clause—appears to be very small. I will not go beyond that, because inquiries are still going on, but up to this moment that would appear to be the position. In other cases, of course, development has taken place and the circumstances have changed, and there is probably only a very small number of such instances.
This does not mean that, even in those cases, it is not right and proper in consideration of the factors to introduce legislation to deal with the changed situation. This is one of the matters which my hon. and learned Friend said last night that we were considering. But, in relation to such cases which might have been affected, there is a fairly simple way in which the matter can be corrected. The developer could ask for a new planning application and, if the local authority refused, he could appeal to the Minister. Therefore, if there is any difficulty in the interim, it can be dealt with in this way.
Both the hon. Member for Crosby and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham based their arguments on the assumption that Mr. Justice Lyell's judgment was a final definition of the law. I do not know whether this will be so. I understand that the plaintiffs are considering appealing. So another situation may then arise. It may be found that the condition or the permission was not invalid and there could be a reversal of those two elements. This must be taken into account because it is important to any consideration of whether to legislate now, as well as of the form which that legislation should take.
The hon. Gentleman realises, I think, that this new Clause must be retrospective and I know that hon. Members opposite normally show signs of horror when one talks about retrospection. If there were no retrospective elements, there would be no point in having the new Clause, and no doubt both Front Bench speakers accept this. However, if retrospective legislation of this sort were introduced now, whether or not the matter goes to appeal, it would be an odd practice in a matter affecting a particular case. It would certainly be so if we adopted this proposal. This consideration must weigh with the House and the Government.
Is the new Clause to deal only with the allegedly invalid time condition, as found by the Queen's Bench court, or is it to deal with other, similar conditions which may also be held, if the judgment is upheld, to be invalid? One needs to take further advice and consultation. This is of wide import. While one wishes to put matters right, particularly on the compensation point—and I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which a local authority could so act, although it is theoretically possible—one also wants to consider those circumstances. At the same time, are we then, as the new Clause states, to suggest that these planning permissions, given before the introduction of the Bill and allegedly invalid because of the time condition, are then to be granted without further conditions?
This could be extremely damaging to other developers and interests. For that reason alone, the new Clause does not commend itself to the Government. The hon. Member for Crosby has certainly made a valiant effort to deal with the situation as a result of the Kingsway Property case. It is a serious point, particularly in relation to the possible use of this judgment, if upheld, to avoid compensation in certain cases. We do not know what the final state of the law will be. We do not think that there are a great number of cases involved, and there is an immediate remedy for those, as a fresh planning permission can be secured.
If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw this new Clause my hon. and learned Friend will undertake, between now and its stages in another place, to have further consultations about possible legis-

lation in the light of the circumstances I have mentioned. We must take into account what the final determination of the law will be. I am not giving an undertaking that inevitably the Government will introduce a new Clause. We might find that the anomalies that would be created by the introduction of a Clause with retrospection of this kind may be much greater than if we did not act, particularly as I have indicated, there are ways in which the difficulties can be overcome.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Rossi: First, I would apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being in my place when the debate resumed. I had other arrangements made for this morning, and had a certain amount of telephoning to do in order to cancel them. In common with many hon. Members, I had been ready to be here all night to debate this very important matter, but the Minister was tired and wanted to go to bed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place he would have heard Mr. Speaker say that the Motion we carried last night was not debatable then, and is not debatable now.

Mr. Rossi: I am not complaining. I hope that the Minister feels much better as a result of his rest. Certainly my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) felt much better, and had obviously benefited from his night's rest. He was in splendid form this morning. We were delighted to hear him analyse this new Clause and the circumstances that had given rise to it. The House is indebted to him for the very full way in which he has explained what is behind it. There are one or two other matters which gave concern in the Kingsway case. It is evident from the report that the original planning application was made in 1952, but it was not until 10 years later, after a number of detailed plans had been submitted, that the planning authority finally said that it would not extend the applicant's time any further. It is quite wrong that such a period of time should be allowed to elapse in this way. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that he will look into this very carefully.

Mr. Skeffington: I know of this case very well. There were two or three


public inquiries in the interim period, and the application was not proceeded with.

Mr. Rossi: The country is anxious that development should go forward rapidly, and this situation underlines the defect in our system. Land here has remained undeveloped for 10 years while planning applications were submitted and public inquiries held. Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary also look at the question he raised concerning the misinterpreting of Departmental circulars by local authorities? This case apparently arose because the word "submission" was transposed by the word "approval". Would he ask local authorities to indicate what kind of conditions they are attaching to planning permissions?
Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I pause until I have the attention of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. We have a very important matter before the House. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has raised a point of principle. He has admitted that this is a question that is giving him great concern. Hon. Members are trying to be helpful and to put forward suggestions for his consideration. He may not value them very highly, but it is a matter of common courtesy for him to pay a little attention to the suggestions we are making, otherwise the Parliamentary procedure in the House is valueless.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member must not think that we are not listening to him. He raises such interesting points that we want to discuss them immediately among ourselves, but we can listen to his argument at the same time.

Mr. Rossi: I am most grateful. I forgot that the Minister had two ears.
I was asking the Minister whether they would consider asking local authorities to send to them details of the types of conditions which are attached to outline planning permissions and, having collated that information and examined the conditions, giving still further advice to local authorities so that there may be a uniform system throughout the country. This would possibly involve the Minister and his Department in a considerable amount of work but, if it would prevent cases such as the present Kingsway case coming

before the courts, that time might be well spent.
The Parliamentary Secretary stated as one of the main points of his reply that there were very few cases affected by this decision of the courts. He qualified his statement by saying, "cases vulnerable to enforcement procedure." Presumably, he meant cases in which developers have already started work under an outline planning permission subject to a condition of this kind and where the planning permission now falls to the ground because it is rendered void by the court decision. It may well be that there are few cases in which the work is in hand at the moment, but it is not merely that narrow range of cases which the Minister has to consider; it is also cases in which the work has long since been completed under planning permission of this kind and cases in which work has not yet been started.
It is true that he said that where this happens the applicant can make a fresh planning application. He regards what he has been given as a scrap of paper, absolutely worthless, he cannot proceed with it, and, therefore, he applies to the local planning authority for fresh planning permission. The local authority may change its mind and, where before it gave conditional planning permission, on this occasion it will give none at all.
This raises the considerations that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) put forward concerning escape from liability for compensation, but I do not intend to pursue that particular aspect of the matter. I am concerned with the matter of procedure. Where an applicant is refused planning permission which he had before, he can then appeal. Perhaps the Minister will be very generous to appellants in such circumstances.
I do not know what his policy will be, but it may well be that he will consider that where this situation has arisen it would be inequitable for a person to be denied planning permission which he has had for many years merely because of a technical fault which the courts have decided invalidates the whole of that permission. The local authority might object and there might be public inquiries.
I am concerned with the enormous waste of time and effort this would


involve for the developers, the local authorities, the Minister, his Department and all the professional advisers who assist the developers. This could be avoided very simply by a new Clause to meet this difficulty here and now. The Minister must decide whether he should make a real effort—as he promised to try to do, although he has not given the undertaking we should like to have from him—to find a suitable form of clause to incorporate in the Bill which would save him, his Department, local authorities, private developers and all their various advisers the waste of time and expense that would arise from putting in fresh applications and possibly going to appeal to replace planning permissions which the courts have decided to invalidate.
I ask the Minister to consider that aspect of the matter extremely seriously, because people have enough to do without having to contend with the paper and bureaucratic work which will be involved unless he is prepared to be definitive and purposeful now and bring in legislation to correct the present position.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he might be saved work by a reversal of the decision in the Court of Appeal. This is perfectly true, but he would also be doing a great service to the ratepayers of Kent if he took a firm decision on this matter so that there would be no need for further litigation. The Minister has said that the Kent County Council would be obliged to defend the decision if the developers decided to appeal. This again would inevitably lead to expense for the county council and the ratepayers. A simple decision on a point which the Minister acknowledges to be right concerning something which needs remedying would save the ratepayers of Kent the expense of further litigation. I feel sure that they would be extremely grateful if the Minister could see his way to doing this.
I have tried not to trespass too much on the time of the House and to deal only with points which my right hon. and learned Friend had not already mentioned, and I am grateful to the House for its indulgence.

Mr. Iremonger: I must join my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) in apologising to the House for

not having found it possible to be here sharp at 10 o'clock as I would have wished. Hon. Members have pressing duties to fulfil and when arrangements are made in advance and then, at a few hours' notice, the House has to meet at 10 o'clock, it is not always possible to throw the whole thing into reverse. Therefore, we may be slightly delayed.
I wish to make some comments on the debate so far, which I have followed very closely. I was particularly impressed by the powerful and incontrovertible case made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) on the merits of the new Clause. I listened very carefully to the answer which the Parliamentary Secretary gave to his powerful appeal that the House should give the Clause its blessing.
11.30 a.m.
It seemed to me that the Joint-Parliamentary Secretary, in perfect good faith, and with his usual courtesy and good sense, based his resistance to the Clause on principles of legislative procedure rather than on the merits of the Clause as it called for an amendment to the law. He said that if we were to pass the Clause it would be retrospective in effect. He prayed in aid the proper abhorrence which is felt, more passionately on this side of the House than on the other, against retrospective legislation, but he revealed that he had not really got the spirit of the objection that we have to retrospective legislation. Retrospective legislation, which the hon. Gentleman prayed in aid, is acceptable when it remedies an injustice to an individual. It is objectionable only when it punishes action de novo which was lawful at the time when the action was performed.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's first objection on the ground of retrospection stands, because if it did all acts of Government with regard to ex-gratia payments would be objectionable in principle because they are by definition retrospective. Therefore, I would not mind the House passing a new Clause which was going to have beneficial retrospective effects.
Secondly, if I understood the hon. Gentleman aright, he said that we should not legislate while the case which has given rise to the Clause is sub-judice to


the extent that it is susceptible to appeal to the House of Lords. I do not think that that is sound. Whether or not the appeal has what the House would regard as a satisfactory effect on the case, what is certain now is that the law is not clear, and surely if the law is not clear no harm can be done to any parties to litigation by clarifying the law so that the expense of the appeal may be avoided, and future cases will not arise. Therefore I cannot feel that the House ought to be persuaded by the second leg of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was supported by the authority of town planning Bar and the whole professional town planning field. There is no question but that an injustice has been done. Private interest has been hugely damaged because of a court's decision on the meaning of the law which was made by this House. It is, therefore, surely our duty to clarify the law without delay, first so that those who are at present victims of it are not further penalised, and secondly so that it cannot happen again.
Thirdly, in replying to my right hon. and learned Friend, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave an assurance that between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place he and his right hon. Friend would consider the matter again. I should have thought that it would have been better, and the House would have been more fully reassured, if. as an earnest of his good intentions he had said that he would introduce a new Clause now, making the best meal of it that he could to remedy this injustice somehow or other, and then it would still have been open to the Government, when the Bill with the new Clause was introduced in another place, to have had the benefit of second thoughts and made it even more perfect if, possibly by risking a slightly hasty judgment, they had not made the most perfect Amendment here.
Having listened carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend, and having, in all fairness, given the benefit of every possible doubt to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he made out a sub-

stantial case against the Clause, either on its merits, which he did not challenge, or on its desirability as being necessary for incorporation in the Bill in its present or slightly different form. I hope that the House will take the opportunity very shortly to divide against the rejection of the Clause. I can see no objection to it either in form or in principle, and if there were any objection in form it could be remedied in another place.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Rippon: (seated and covered): On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, can you give the House guidance on this matter? As the Minister of State said, we have been dealing with an extremely complex and difficult matter. We have had a debate which has not been of great length. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has been deprived of his normal right of reply. Has the House no protection against the Patronage Secretary and the deplorable way in which he conducts our affairs?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Member cannot question the acceptance of the Closure by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Rippon: On a point of order. Is there any way in which we can question the right of the Patronage Secretary to change the business in a way which creates the maximum discomfort and difficulty for hon. Members, and then, having changed the business, he prevents us from having another opportunity of discussing a matter of grave public importance? What can we do about a Government who are sustained simply by the payroll vote?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of argument, not a point of order. The right hon. and learned Member must raise it in other ways; not at this stage.

The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 86.

Division No. 152.]
AYES
[11.35 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurence


Archer, Peter
Haseldine, Norman
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Armstrong, Ernest
Heffer, Eric S.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Henig, Stanley
Pentland, Norman


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hooley, Frank
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Horner, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Barnett, Joel
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Baxter, William
Hoy, James
Randall, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Huckfield, Leslie
Rankin, John


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hunter, Adam
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Booth, Albert
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Robinson, w. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Bray, Or. Jeremy
Kelley, Richard
Roebuck, Roy


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Kenyon, Clifford
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rose, Paul


Buchan, Norman
Lawson, George
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Leadbitter, Ted
Ryan, John


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ledger, Ron
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lough[...]in, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Slater, Joseph


Dell, Edmund
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Dempsey, James
MacDermot, Niall
Snow, Julian


Dewar, Donald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dickens, James
Mackintosh, John P.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Doig, Peter
McNamara, J. Kevin
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
MacPherson, Malcolm
Symonds, J. B.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thornton, Ernest


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mapp, Charles
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
Marks, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Marquand, David
Varley, Eric G.


English, Michael
Maxwell, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ennals, David
Mayhew, Christopher
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Mendelson, J. J.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Bruce
Wallace, George


Fernyhough, E.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moonman, Eric
Whitaker, Ben


Fowler, Gerry
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitlock, William


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Norwood, Christopher
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Freeson, Reginald
Ogden, Eric
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Galpern, Sir Myer
O'Malley, Brian
Winnick, David


Gardner, Tony
Orbach, Maurice
Woodbum, Rt. Hn. A.


Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Gregory, Arnold
Oswald, Thomas
Yates, Victor


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Walker-Harrison and


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Park, Trevor
 Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Hamling, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eden, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
 Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Astor, John
Emery, Peter
Monro, Hector


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Montgomery, Fergus


Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Boardman, Tom
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Murton, Oscar


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E.B.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Holland, Philip
Pardoe, John


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Carlisle, Mark
Iremonger, T. L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Clark, Henry
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton


Clegg, Walter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pym, Francis



Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Costain, A. P.
Kirk, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crouch, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Currie, G. B. H.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lubbock, Eric
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mawby, Ray
Scott, Nicholas







Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Wright, Esmond


Sinclair, Sir George
Ward, Dame Irene
Wylie, N. R.


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Younger, Hn. George


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)



Temple, John M.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 155.

Division No. 153.]
AYES
 [11.44 a.m. 


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gurden, Harold
Pounder, Rafton


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pym, Francis


Astor, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boardman, Tom
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bossom, Sir Clive
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brewis, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Kirk, peter
Scott, Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carlisle, Mark
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sinclair, Sir George


Clark, Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Clegg, Walter
Lubbock, Eric
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cooke, Robert
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Temple, John M.


Costain, A. P.
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Crouch, David
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Currie, G. B. H.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
More, Jasper
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Eden, Sir John
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Winstanley, Dr. M, P.


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Murton, Oscar
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Emery, Peter
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wright, Esmond


Eyre, Reginald
Onslow, Cranley
Wylie, N. R.


Farr, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hn. George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Par doe, John



Gower, Raymond
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Anthony Grant and




Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
English, Michael
Kenyon, Clifford


Archer, Peter
Ennals, David
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lawson, George


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fernyhough, E.
Leadbitter, Ted


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Ledger, Ron


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Fowler, Gerry
Loughlin, Charles


Barnett, Joel
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Baxter, William
Freeson, Reginald
McBride, Neil


Bidwell, Sydney
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacDermot, Niall


Blackburn, F.
Gardner, Tony
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gregory, Arnold
McNamara, J. Kevin


Booth, Albert
Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mapp, Charles


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marquand, David


Buchan, Norman
Hamling, William
Maxwell, Robert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Christopher


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Haseldine, Norman
Mendelson, J. J.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Henig, Stanley
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hooley, Frank
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dell, Edmund
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Norwood, Christopher


Dempsey, James
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Ogden, Eric


Dewar, Donald
Hoy, James
O'Malley, Brian


Dickens, James
Huckfield, Leslie
Oram, Albert E.


Doig, Peter
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Orbach, Maurice


Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kelley, Richard
Paget, R. T.




Park, Trevor
Rote, Paul
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valey)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Pavitt, Laurence
Ryan, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pearson, Arthur (pontypridd)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wallace, George


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Pentland, Norman
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur 
Whitaker, Ben


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Slater, Joseph
Whitlock, William


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Small, William
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Price, William (Rugby)
Snow, Julian
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Rankin, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Winnick, David


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Robertson1, John (Paisley)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Woof, Robert


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Symonds, J. B.
Yates, Victor


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Thornton, Ernest



Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tinn, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roebuck, Roy
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. J. D. Concannon.

Clause 1.

SURVEY OF PLANNING AREAS.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in line 21, leave out paragraph (a).
I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it may be convenient for the House to consider, at the same time, Government Amendments No. 2 and 4.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it, if that is convenient to the House.

Mr. Skeffington: In Committee on 15th February a requirement was written into the Bill to subsection (3)(a) stating that in making a survey of planning areas, an authority should keep under review
the relationship between the development of that area … and the development and planning (including economic planning and development) of the United Kingdom and the Region of which that area forms part.
Having had time to consider the matter, the House will realise that this obligation to keep under review and to survey the economic planning development of the United Kingdom as well as of the region of which the area forms part is very wide indeed. The Government feel that it would be wrong to impose on planning authorities the duty of collecting information about, and keeping under review, the economic activities of the whole country. There is provision in other parts of the Bill—for example, in subsection (3)(d)—concerning
… the communications, transport system and traffic of …
the area and of neighbouring areas. In that case the details concerning neighbouring areas will be undertaken by the authorities of those areas and not by the authority of the area which is making the survey.
This series of Amendments is, therefore, designed to take away—because it is unnecessary and far too heavy a commitment—this obligation to review planning matters for the country as a whole. At the same time, it retains, as a factor in the preparation of the strategic plan, the need to consider
… the economic planning and development of the region as a whole
No doubt this will come within the sort of policies which will be promulgated by the regional economic councils. The requirement of Amendment 2 should be properly taken into account in the making of strategic plans, but this requirement is a less onerous obligation and a more relevant one. Amendment 4 is consequential on Amendments 1 and 2 being accepted.

Mr. Graham Page: In Committee the paragraph which is now being deleted by Amendment 1 was introduced on a Motion by Government supporters and my hon. Friends found it attractive because it reflected an argument which we had adduced on Second Reading. That argument was that the Bill was putting the cart before the horse from the point of view of local government reform. We felt that, with the Royal Commission sitting on the question of local government structure, the right time for the Bill would have been when the House and the public knew what structure local government would take.
I was not anxious to delay reforms in town and country planning, but I would have hoped that they could have come forward quickly so that we could have fitted them into the reform procedure, and I particularly had in mind what the Royal Commission might advise should be done about regional structure. This


is specifically mentioned in the paragraph introduced in Committee and in the paragraph now to be introduced into Clause 2 by Amendment 2. I still think, that it would have been better had the local government reforms been brought forward quickly so that the town planning reforms could have fitted into the new structure. As it is, we do not know on what local planning authorities will be directed to prepare structure plans and it is, therefore, difficult to see with what they should concern themselves in preparing those plans.
We are left in doubt about the size of the authorities, the areas they will cover in preparing structure plans and, therefore the extent to which they will have to look at regional planning. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the paragraph introduced in Committee went too far in requiring local planning authorities to consider national planning, and in Committee my hon. Friends had in mind regional rather than national planning. This is what we wanted to see inserted in the Bill. We are faced with removal of what the Committee put into the Bill and substitution of something in another place in the Bill.
12 noon.
By Amendment No. 1 we take out the obligation on the local planning authority to examine regional planning at the stage when the survey is being made. Under subsection (3) the local planning authority, in making its survey as a preliminary to preparation of the structure plan, is required to consider certain matters. The subsection says,
the matters to be examined and kept under review 
and then it sets out what matters have to be examined and kept under review by the local planning authority.
One of them, introduced by the Committee, was paragraph (a):
the relationship between the development of that area on the planning of its development and the development and planning (including economic planning and development) of the United Kingdom and the Region of which that area forms part.
If we remove that, there is no obligation to examine or to keep under review regional policy in relation to the development of the area to which the structure plan applies. Then we have the

extraordinary position that, being under no obligation to examine it, the authority must have regard to it when drawing the structure plan.

Mr. Skeffington: Has the hon. Member overlooked paragraph (b)?

Mr. Page: Paragraph (b) says:
the principal physical and economic characteristics of the area of the authority (including the principal purposes for which land is used) and, so far as they may be expected to affect that area, of any neighbouring areas.
We discussed this in Committee. It deals with the development of the area of the local planning authority and how it will affect its neighbours. I grant the Parliamentary Secretary that it is a wider outlook than just the area of the local planning authority, but it is not looking at it from a regional point of view. That would have been provided by paragraph (a) as introduced by the Committee.
Returning to my previous point, the local planning authority will not be required to examine the regional aspects of its proposals in the course of the survey, but when it formulates its structure plan, if Amendment No. 2 is accepted, it will be required to have regard
to current policies with respect to the economic planning and development of the region as a whole.
This leaves the matter very much in the air for the local planning authority. If it is to formulate a structure plan on the survey, we should let it have the facts in the survey, but to give it new facts to which it is to have regard under subsection (4) at the stage when it is formulating the plan, will leave it with no basis of fact on which to formulate the plan.
This becomes even more important when we consider how the public come into participation. When we look further into the Bill and at the new Clauses we have discussed, we see that the public are to be given information about the survey. That is the first thing which is to be put before the public. If we exclude from the survey any investigation of regional planning, that point will be missed in presenting the whole picture to the public. There will be this gap which will be jumped in preparation of the structure plan.
I fail to see the reason for excluding consideration of regional planning when


the survey is being prepared and including it later when the structure plan is under consideration. We have agreed on both sides of the House, and agreed on both sides in Committee, that there are two clear stages with which to start. First, there is the survey in which the local planning authority will get all its facts and to some extent reach conclusions on them by setting them out in some form of a report. Next, the authority is to prepare a structure plan if and when ordered by the Minister to do so.
In preparing that structure plan, the authority is to give consideration to what is in the survey and, one hopes, to base its conclusions on the facts presented in the survey so that the structure plan is a natural follow-on to what is disclosed in the survey. To ask it to consider some other facts when preparing the structure plan—facts which are not disclosed in the survey—will not only put the local planning authority in some difficulty but will not present the full picture to the public when the plan and survey are given publicity under a later Clause.
A point about the actual wording of Amendment No. 2 and the introduction of the paragraph into subsection (4) refers to
the region as a whole.
I am not quite clear what is meant by "the region" at this stage of our development of local government structure. We have economic regions at present. I presume that the phrase
economic planning and development of the region as a whole
refers to regions covered by the appointed regional councils, but the word "region" is spelled with a small "r". We use this word in discussing local government, particularly local government reform. Some people have an idea of 50 or 60 regions as top authorities for the country, a sort of pyramid of authorities. Others have in mind a much smaller number— 10 or 20, or even fewer. We should like to have an explanation of what the Government had in mind when drafting this Clause with a small "r" and referring to regions in general.
We should have left paragraph (a) in Clause 1 even if the wording might have been a little better. We should include some such paragraph as is suggested by Amendment No. 2 in Clause 2.

Mr. John Fraser: Since I can claim parentage of paragraph (a) in Clause 1, I express satisfaction with the proposal made by the Government. On reflection, I think it right that local planning authorities should not be under an obligation to survey the whole of the economic requirements of the United Kingdom. I fully accept that argument.
I also accept that Clause 1 of the Bill deals with physical characteristics, economic characteristics and factual matters about population, and so forth. It is probably right to include in Clause 2 the provision to have regard to the economic development of the region, because at that stage they are making a policy decision, having made a factual survey of the economic conditions.
We are making a very big advance in writing into the Town and Country Planning Bill for the first time the obligation on the planning authority to look at the economic planning of its area instead of at the conventional factors in town planning. I am grateful that the Government have accepted the idea, and I think that this is probably the right way to do it.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I seem to be a little nervous, but, whether it be in Standing Committee or in this Chamber, I seem to be constantly bombarded with Closures, Adjournments, and Guillotines, which tend to affect one's confidence in addressing the House, and is most upsetting generally.
The Amendment is a triumph for the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), who raised the matter in Committee, although his Amendment is now being moved out by Amendment No. 1. He made a very powerful speech in Committee which helped to persuade hon. Members on this side of the House to vote with him for his Amendment. I agreed with him fully and I spoke in support of his Amendment in Committee. I said, as I did on Second Reading, how very important it was that the economic factors of planning should not be left out, and equally how important it was that the regional economic planning councils should feel that their fact-finding and their decisions were not wasted. The amount of material collected by these councils, even if not much has been done


with it so far, is quite formidable and would be of considerable help to a planner. I cannot agree that economic development should not be a factor in the survey. I think it should.
If I may give a reason for that view, in Lancashire there has been a very extensive study of the setting up of a new town at Chorley and Leyland. The original intention was to have a town based on the M.6 as a growth point in that area of Lancashire. Subsequently, a further study called "Impact" was undertaken, which considered the layout, the geological structure of the area and to a certain extent the economic trends that were likely to develop, the rundown of North-East Lancashire and the impact that this might have.
12.15 p.m.
What, for example, it did not do, and which I would hope would be included in the word "economic" which is used in the Amendment, was to consider also the fiscal matters which have a direct effect on planning. The problem is not only, shall there be a new town in a certain place? If that happens it will affect the other towns around it in North-East Lancashire. The planners should do two planning schemes before a new town is started, one based on the assumption that the new town would be developed with fiscal incentives from the Government, such as other new towns receive, and one on the assumption that it would be developed without such fiscal incentives Fiscal incentives make a tremendous difference. It means that it will be much more difficult to get development in the older part of the area, and it will perhaps accelerate the rundown. Dealing with this matter in isolation from economic facts is what worries me.
The Amendment now before us takes the matter a stage further. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, we are in the interim period before the report of the Royal Commission, and we do not know what will be the final shape of local authorities. Presumably, it will be possible at that time for the word "regional" to be given another meaning than that which it has here. All sorts of regional authorities may be proposed, even an assembly in Scotland. I welcome the Government's

move as far as it goes, but I still have a feeling that the hon. Member for Norwood had the right idea in the first place.
The Government Amendment in subsection (4), on page 3, makes it absolutely compulsory for the local authority to take into account the matters mentioned in the Amendment. If a local authority or a local planning authority does not take these matters into account in formulating its plan, does that give ground for the plan to be invalidated at a later stage?
The hon. Member for Norwood has done the House and planning a great service, by raising this matter originally, and I only wish that it had been possible for the Government to go further with him than they have done.

Mr. Oscar Murton: In general, we would agree with the Amendment which has now been proposed, although, as the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has said, the original Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), which we all supported in Standing Committee, very intelligently met the point at issue.
The word "region" in the Amendment has, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde has pointed out, a small "r" at the beginning of it and not a capital "R". Have the Government given full consideration to what might ultimately be the pattern of local government in the country when the two Royal Commissions have reported?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said, there is a possibility that we may have one of two alternative patterns. One does not have to be a seer in order to realise, by the way in which the evidence has been presented to the Royal Commissions, both by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and by the Treasury, that it is highly probable that we shall have regions based on the cities, principally because Whitehall desires to keep a grip on local authorities. I think it should be the other way round, and that there should be considerable autonomy granted to bigger regions, but this is an entirely personal view.
As at present drafted, the Amendment does not say what sort of region we are


dealing with. We know that we have the economic planning regions which were set up under the ill-starred and ill-famed National Plan, and we also know that there are various other regions. There are hospital regions, Post Office regions, and I believe we have Income Tax regions, but there is no comprehensive or coherent pattern at the present time. The Minister should say what is meant by the word "region" and whether it would not be possible at a later stage, possibly in another place, to spell out more clearly in the Amendment what exactly is meant. At present I suggest that it means exactly nothing.

Mr. Iremonger: I did not have the great benefit and privilege of being selected to serve on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, but I followed its proceedings, as well as every detail of the Bill, with the greatest possible interest, although a very heavy demand on resources of time and energy is made on hon. Members who want to keep abreast of the totally unnecessary volume of legislation which the present Government has introduced.
I welcomed the insertion of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) about taking regional developments into consideration, and I cannot see the merit of the way the Government are tinkering with this. Clause 1 says that local planning authorities shall institute a survey of their areas and keep certain matters under review. Then, on the basis of the survey and the review, they shall produce a plan and a policy. That seemed to me a perfectly logical and sensible way of going about things, because the plan and the policy are based on considerations of what is going on in neighbouring regions.
But if one is to have one's survey and review and then produce the plan and policy, and suddenly tag on to it certain observations about what is going on that one has not noticed, surveyed or reviewed in neighbouring regions, what will be the effect? Presumably an authority will say, "We have had our survey and review. On the basis of them this would be the plan and policy, but—dear me !—this makes nonsense because we did not survey one of the things that will affect our plan and policy." Can the Minister explain just

how it is better to take account of something which affects one's plan and policy after one has made it rather than before?
No doubt there is deep wisdom in this which has escaped me. The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, and, when he does so, I have no doubt had it, because there will be infinite wisdom residing in the head he is shaking. I hope that he will explain the matter to the House, because it seems absolutely plumb crazy.
What is a region? I have long given up hoping that in legislation or other public utterances any regard will be paid to syntax or grammar, let alone such subtle matters as the use of capital letters. I am glad that this has been noticed. In St. James's Park there is a notice saying:
No commercial vehicles allowed in here Unless authorised.
Suddenly, in the middle of upper and lower case, there is a capital "U" for unless.
If the Minister of Transport or whatever authority is responsible can put up that sort of monstrosity in a public notice, we cannot be surprised at a certain inconsistency in Bills and Amendments to them. It is confusing to find in the Bill a capital "R" for regions and in the Amendment a small "r".
What is a region? This will have to be construed by the courts. I see no mention of "region" in the interpretation Clause, it is not something which is established by Statute. This strikes me as being legislation by leading article, because in leading article after leading article the pundits have been pontificating on regional this and regional that, regions here and regions there. The. House has been mesmerised into thinking that we have such things as regions, but there are no such things.
One of my hon. Friends said that there was some implication of regionalism in the National Plan, but I should have thought that that was not a definition but an admission of total failure and despair. If one sees reference to regions in the National Plan I should think that they are things which do not exist, not things which could be incorporated later in legislation.
So, I have two questions for the Minister. What is the merit of considering


the basis of one's action after taking the action instead of before? Second, what is meant by "regions", whether with a capital or a lower case "r"?

Mr. Skeffington: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) said. I am glad that he feels that we have gone a long way to meeting the very important point he made in Committee. He recognises, and I believe that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) will recognise if he applies his mind to it, that it would be a very heavy responsibility to place on all planning authorities the obligation to survey the whole of the economic planning of the United Kingdom—not even of England and Wales alone. That was the effect of the Amendment made in Committee.
The planning authorities have their own staffs, and they would all be doing such surveys, which would mean duplication. Therefore, whilst we do not ignore this factor, as I hope to demonstrate, it seems right to take this statutory obligation from them. There are already in the regions other bodies that would be doing this. The regional economic planning councils will be propounding their policies, and these can and must statutorily be taken into account in the formation of the strategic plan under Clause 2. The work will be done, and the information will be there.
The planning authorities are still under an obligation under Clause 1(3)(b) and (d) to consider areas adjacent to them. They already have obligations in relation to a sub-region, to an area wider than their own, but they are shorn of the difficulties of wasteful duplication of resources because, by Clause 1(4), they can rely on the adjacent authority for information they want in making their own survey of the sub-region.
That is why I am sure that it is right for us to take away the need to do something which is being done by others, thus avoiding wasteful duplication in keeping under review the whole economic processes of the United Kingdom, and to make Amendment 2 to Clause 2, under which planning authorities shall have regard
to current policies with respect to the economic planning and development of the region as a whole;

That clearly means the economic region in which the local authority is situated. We may later be faced with much larger authorities as a result of the recommendations or proposals of the Royal Commission. In that case, if the wording is not suitable, we can introduce Regions, with a capital "R", or so define the word as to cover the new set-up. We cannot do that at this stage. "Region" now clearly means a region covered by a regional economic planning council.
The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) asked about resources, and the need for them to be taken into account. He will see that the point he made is covered in Clause 2(4).

Mr. Clegg: I asked whether the word "economic" here also included the fiscal elements of attracting industry from one area to another.

Mr. Skeffington: The sentence to which I drew the hon. Gentleman's attention says:
… shall have regard to the resources likely to be available …
and that certainly covers fiscal.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. R. Bonner Pink: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his most helpful remarks. I feel that I can go with him to the extent that it would be unreasonable for every authority to have to look at the whole of the economic planning of the whole country. However, that can be got over by removing the few words that include it I am sorry that the Government feel they must take out the whole of the subsection, because, as has been mentioned, the Committee passed this by a large majority from both sides.
I thought that we had the support of the Minister at that time, because he said:
With these two Amendments, we have come to the substance of the Clause as opposed to procedural matters, and we have plunged deeply into the subject already. I welcome the debate which we have had and the points which have been made, and with the exception of the matter to which I will turn in a moment—namely, how much we should write into the Bill—I am in agreement with almost everything that hon. Members have said on both sides of the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 15th February, 1968; c. 16.]
The objection at that time was principally whether this should be included—as


I see it, more to dot the i's and cross the t's. I cannot see how this subsection can damage the Bill. It can only strengthen it.
I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's point about wasting the resources of neighbouring authorities, but with cooperation (here need not be waste. This is an important part of the Bill, because it would ensure the underlying necessity of planning perhaps a fairly large area, not only from the amenity point of view, but the economic balance.
In Portsmouth, we had a recent experience of the Buchanan Report on what is known as the Solent city. It has clearly shown the necessity of getting a much wider area, which includes two large cities and EL rural area with all their difficulties and problems. It would be of value to keep this subsection in the Bill to make csrtain that in such cases the large area would be considered.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.

PREPARATION OF STRUCTURE PLANS.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 3, line 26, after ' regard ', insert:


(a) to current policies with respect to the economic planning and development of the region as a whole;
(b).

No. 3, in page 3, line 27, leave out 'those proposals' and insert:
'the proposals of the plan'.

No. 4: in line 28, at beginning insert '(c)'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 3.

PROCEDURE FOR SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF STRUCTURE PLANS.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 11, leave out Clause 3.
This Amendment and Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are consequential on the new Clauses.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4.

ALTERATION TO STRUCTURE PLANS.

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 5, line 37, leave out 'section 3' and insert:
'sections (Publicity in connection with preparation of structure plan) and (Approval or rejection of structure plan by Minister)'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 5.

PREPARATION OF LOCAL PLANS.

Amendment made: No. 8 in line 40, leave out Clause 5.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 6.

INQUIRIES, ETC., WITH RESPECT TO LOCAL PLANS.

Mr, MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 10 in page 7, line 28, leave out from second 'by' to 'and' in line 29 and insert
'the Minister or, in such cases as may be prescribed by regulations under this Part of this Act, by the authority themselves'.
Clause 6 relates to inquiries with respect to local plans. This was one of the most keenly debated subjects in Committee: what is the proper procedure by which to appoint an inspector for local inquiries?

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. Would it be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 with Amendment No. 10?

Mr. MacDermot: I would entirely agree.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I think that would be very convenient. I suggest, therefore, that we take Amendments Nos. 10, 11, in page 7, line 28, leave out from second ' by ' to ' and ' in line 29 and insert ' the Minister', and Government Amendment No. 12 together.

Mr. MacDermot: I am obliged. I was saying that this was a keenly debated matter in Committee, as it had been outside Parliament from the time when the provisions of the Bill were first published. There was a general desire in Committee that in the first


stage the appointment of inspectors to inquire into local plans should be done by the Minister, if possible, from his own inspectorate. We have sought to meet that feeling. I give the assurance that it is our intention in the first instance to do that.
The Amendment provides for some flexibility, and I ask the House to agree that it is reasonable to provide for that flexibility. I will explain briefly the effect of the Amendment. It will enable direct appointment to be made by the Minister of the inspector, appointment by the local planning authority from a list drawn up and maintained by the Minister, or appointment by the local planning authority of persons possessing qualifications approved by the Minister, either with or without specific Ministerial approval of the person chosen.
We are influenced by the fact that the introduction of local plans will be gradual and phased. We will not get a sudden rush of local plans from all over the country. The first stage under the new procedure will be the submission of structure plans and their approval. Local authorities will then proceed to make plans for action areas, which will have priority as local plans. These first ones, being action area plans, will be unusually important local plans. This is an additional reason for providing that those plans in the first stage shall be dealt with by inspectors appointed by the Minister, and they will almost certainly be appointed from within his own inspectorate.
We will not be able to depart from that system without making a change by regulations which would have to be brought before the House, so that the House will retain control of the system. But, as matters get into their swing, as a wider number of authorities are covered by the new system and as the number of local plans begins to increase and come forward, clearly a time could come when it would impose an undue burden upon the inspectorate of the Ministry to have to act as inspectors for all these local plans.
I anticipate that a stage is likely to be reached when it would be right and safe to move to the next stage, which might be the maintenance of a list by the Min-

ister of approved persons outside his inspectorate, local authorities being free to select someone from that list. We have kept open the possibility of an eventual stage when local authorities will be free to appoint persons with the necessary qualifications but who are not necessarily on the list maintained centrally by the Ministry.
Naturally, the Minister at the time will be guided by the experience which we have from the working of the new system and of the general confidence in the local authorities operating the new system before giving them that new power. I should like to keep open the possibility of this complete flexibility. After all, the structure of the Bill is to give great additional authority and power to local authorities, and if we are to trust them to settle their own local plans, it is odd in principle that they should never be trusted to appoint the independent inspector to investigate those plans. We have gone a long way to concede the point, however, and we undertake that we will operate this cautiously in the first stage, as we have been asked to do.

Mr. James Allason: Under the Bill at present, the planning authority would prepare its own plan, then receive objections, and then, if a public hearing was necessary, would appoint its own inspector. Then, the inspector would make his report and recommendations to the planning authority which could accept or reject them and adopt its own plan against his recommendations. The Minister of State is now giving way slightly on this procedure, which has been more criticised than anything else. He keeps trying to say that we must not talk about the local planning authority being judge and jury in its own cause, but this is precisely what has been done. Now he has modified it, but the modifications are insufficient.
The Minister says that the local authorities will always act for the best if trusted to make their own local plan and must equally be trusted to appoint their own inspectors. But we do not want to attack the local authorities so much as to protect them against criticism by the public. If the local authority appoints an inspector, even though from a list prepared by the Minister, and the inspector's findings annoy a large number of people,


the public will say, "This was a put-up job, and the planning authority is not independent "We want to protect them from that.
Therefore, it is much better that the inspector should be appointed from outside so that there can be no accusation that the local authority found the "easy man "who would always give the decision which it wants. It is not as if the planning authority is entirely independent. As a landowner, it has an active interest in the local plan and cannot be said to act always in the best interests of the citizen. It has a vested interest and it may appear to the public that it is not acting as fairly as it should. There are great difficulties here: we do not want to attack but to protect.
Amendment No. 10 would provide a choice in that the inquiry could then be held by
the Minister or, in such cases as may be prescribed by regulations under this Part of this Act, by the authority themselves".
The Minister of State has explained that this means that there will be a list of qualified people to take the inquiry, from which the local authority may select, but there must always be an easy man and a hard man on a list and it is undesirable that the planning authorities should have this choice.
Amendment No. 11 would remove the possibility of the authority choosing and would merely mean that the hearing would be held by someone appointed by the Minister. This is a more satisfactory method and is not an insult to or a lack of confidence in local authorities. It would, instead, help them.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Murton: This matter was debated fully in Committee and it is one of grave importance, as the Minister of State admitted. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a very expansive statement in Committee:
Finally, there is my hon. Friend's proposal for selection by the Minister, with the full responsibility being on the Minister. This is, of course, as it were, taking the argument to its logical conclusion, and has, therefore, the attractions of anything which is carried to its logical conclusion. It would ensure the complete independence—and public satisfaction as to the complete independence in that appointment—of the inspector.
I must go on, in fairness, to point out that he then added:

But it increases the administrative problem very considerably and has the disadvantages of centralisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G; 5th March, 1968; c. 261.]
There are undoubtedly disadvantages in centralisation, but I would not have thought that it increased the administrative problem. I know that it is the Government's policy to have as much devolution as possible in this matter, but this is the one part of the Bill where devolution would be a bad thing.
We were last night discussing the fact that every man's home is his castle. That cliché bears out what the ordinary man feels about his home and the effects of development nearby upon it. He is entitled to know that, when an inspector investigates a planning application, he should be as far as possible both impartial and remote from the local scene.
All of us have heard in our own constituencies the common remark of aggrieved persons after a planning appeal, "The inspector heard what I had to say, but did not appear to take much notice of it." That is an innocent and natural remark, made largely out of irritation because things have not gone as the householder wanted, but at the back of his mind he knows that the inspector is entirely impartial and unconnected with the area, which he may never have visited before.
This is the great strength, showing the completely impartial justice in these cases. I fear that those on a local panel, with the best will in the world and honourable though they may be, would have certain knowledge and would thus be subject to suspicion by aggrieved people that they might not have been as impartial as they should have been.
We know that this would be untrue. On the other hand, it would be wrong if they were subjected to such criticism. With the best will in the world, local authorities are bound to have a direct interest, through their responsibilities as elected members of the public, in these developers. It is wrong that they should be able to choose from a panel of local people. The best way out of this problem, to remove all possible suspicion, is to leave the nomination in the Minister's hands. Then there would be nothing but impartiality and fair dealing.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 12 in page 7, line 40, at end insert:

(2) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) above may—

(a) make provision with respect to the appointment and qualifications for appointment of persons to hold a local inquiry or other hearing under that subsection, including provision enabling the Minister to direct a local planning authority to appoint a particular person, or one of a specified list or class of persons;
(b) make provision with respect to the remuneration and allowances of a person appointed for the said purpose.—[Mr. Mac Dermot.]

Clause 7.

ADOPTION AND APPROVAL OF LOCAL PLANS.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 13 in page 7, line 44, after 'to', insert 'section (Publicity for preparation of local plans) above and '.
This is consequential on new Clause 4.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 8, line 3, at end insert:
(2) The local planning authority shall not adopt a local plan unless it conforms generally to the structure plan as approved by the Minister.
This is consequential on new Clause 3.

Mr. Allason: I cannot understand how it would be possible to prepare a local plan in accordance with new Clause 3 until one has the formula proposals conforming generally to the structure plan, or how it would be possible to adopt a different structure plan. If it has been formulated in the first place, it is not necessary to bring it in again.

Mr. Skeffington: This Amendment springs directly from an undertaking given by my hon. and learned Friend. We are honouring an undertaking given to the Opposition.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 16, in line 8, leave out ' subsections (4) to (7) of section 3' and insert:
'section (Approval or rejection of structure plan by Minister) '.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 8.

ALTERATION TO LOCAL PLANS.

Amendments made: No. 17 in page 8, line 27, leave out '5(6) to (10)' and insert:
'5(9) to (11), (Publicity for preparation of local plans)'.

No. 18, in line 33, leave out ' 3(4) to (7)' and insert:
'(Approval or rejection of structure plan by Minister)'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 11.

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO STRUCTURE AND LOCAL PLANS.

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 10, line 7, after 'submission', insert 'withdrawal'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in line 9, at end insert:
(a) provide for the publicity to be given to the report of any survey carried out fey a local planning authority under section 1 of this Act.
Clause 11(1) provides general regulation-making power. In this Amendment we make it clear that the publicity to be given to the report of any survey carried out under Clause 1 can be dealt with by the regulations, as well as publicity for the structure, and local plans, and the procedures with respect to them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in line 20, leave out out from ' replacement' to end of line 22 and insert:
(c) provide for notice to be given of the approval, adoption or alteration of any plan to persons who have objected to the plan and have notified the local planning authority of their wish to receive notice, subject (if the regulations so provide) to the payment of a reasonable charge for receiving it.
The effect of this Amendment is to include among the subjects particularly mentioned in the Clause, that power to make regulations to provide for notice to be given of the transfer, adoption or alteration of any plan to persons who have objected to the plan, and have notified the local planning authority of their wish to receive that notice, subject,


if the regulations so provide, to the payment of a reasonable charge for receiving it. The Amendment is tabled in response to points raised by hon. Members opposite in Committee.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling this Amendment in response to requests from our side of the Committee. There is one point where it does net go far enough. It provides that notice shall be given to those
…. who have objected to the plan and have notified the local planning authority of their wish to receive notice …
It is the "and" to which I object. We ought to provide for notice to be given to any one who wishes it, and gives the local planning authority warning that they so desire. If they are prepared to pay a reasonable charge for receiving the notice why should they have to object to the plan and give notice in order to get that information?
I had hoped that there would be some sort of register of those who have informed the authority they wished to receive the notice. It is not only people who object to the plan, but others, who want to know how the plan eventually affects their property. They may approve of it, and may not wish to appear as objectors. I hope that the Minister will put the word "or" in place of the word "and" in another place.

Mr. MacDennot: I will take note of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, Amendment No. 22, in line 29, at end insert:
and for copies of any such plan or document to be made available on sale '.
The effect of this Amendment will be to specify that regulations may be made to provide for the availability for sale of copies of any plan which has been approved, and any documents approved

or made altering, repealing or replacing such plans. This is again in response to an Amendment put down by the Opposition.

Mr. Graham Page: I would like, to thank the Minister for making provision for something raised by us in Committee. This is a very practical point. Many of us who in practice have had to look at plans in the offices of local planning authorities, know how extremely difficult it is to take in all the details, particularly if they are diagramatic. Here we will have structure plans which are diagramatic as well as written.
I imagine that a structure plan of a local planning authority will be a massive volume. The local plans will be in great detail, which cannot be absorbed and considered by sitting on the corner of a table in a town planning officer's office. If we are able to purchase copies, take them home and study them, it will be of great benefit to the property owner, the developer, the professional man, the architect, surveyor and lawyer. This is one of the most practically useful Amendments we have so far discussed on Report.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacDermot: In view of the hour, I think that this would be a convenient moment to break off. I understand that I have the concurrence of other hon. Members in this course.
Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Bill to be further considered this day.

ADJOURNMENT

The business having been concluded, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Order.

Adjourned at two minutes past One o'clock p.m.

Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday-next.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Nigeria

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further progress has been made, as a result of initiatives by Great Britain, to end the civil war in Nigeria; and what was the outcome of Her Majesty's Government's discussions with the representative of the Nigerian Federal Government about the supply of arms.

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what represenations he has received concerning the supply of arms to Nigeria; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the initiatives he is taking to promote peace talks between the Federal Government of Nigeria and Biafra.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what

progress has been made, as a result of the initiative of the Commonwealth Secretariat, in bringing about the end of military hostilities in Nigeria; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of the peace talks proposed by both sides, he will now review Her Majesty's Government's policy on the supply of arms to Nigeria.

Mr. Henig: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further peace moves he is contemplating with a view to helping to end the civil war in Nigeria.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the assistance given by Her Majesty's Government towards the promotion of peace talks between the Federal Government of Nigeria and Biafra.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): Direct contacts in London between the two sides have led to agreement to meet for peace talks in Kampala. We have received no recent represenations from the Federal Government about arms supplies. We have kept our policy under constant review and will continue to do so. If in the course of the peace talks which are about to start both sides were able to agree on a suspension of arms deliveries, we should be very ready to co-operate.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Britain would like to see all foreign arms supplies to Nigeria cut off, including arms from this country? Have the Federal Government been told clearly that the feeling in Britain is that the destruction and killing should stop, and that negotiations should decide the future of Nigeria and Biafra?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. The Federal Commissioner for External Affairs, Dr. Arikpo, was in London a week or two ago and he had talks with both the Prime Minister and myself. We represented to him strongly how concerned public opinion was in this country, and how we have always held the view that this was a civil war which must end in a political settlement. We are therefore very happy that as a result of the events


of the last few days the two sides have agreed to come together in Kampala.

Dr. Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it was not the representations from the Nigerian Federal Government which some of us had in mind? Does my right hon. Friend also accept the recent disturbing reports that the arms which we acknowledge we are supplying to the Federal Government are now in the hands of a rabble which it appears the Federal Government are no longer in control of? Does not that make some difference to the kind of policy that we are pursuing?

Mr. Thomson: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend, who on this matter is being less than his usual fair self. There is no evidence that Britain's arms policy has hindered peace talks and a great deal of evidence that it has enabled us to play a. part in bringing the two sides together round the table.

Mr. Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend remember that some Members on both sides of the House remain convinced that the original decision to allow arms supplies to Nigeria to continue was wrong? Will he now use the influence, which he has told us many times he has in Lagos, in both word and deed to bring home to those concerned that this is a problem which is not capable of a military solution?

Mr. Thomson: I understand the deep feeling of my hon. Friend, and of hon. Members on both sides of the House, about the question of arms in relation to the Nigerian civil war, but I can only repeat that we have used our influence all the time in the direction of bringing about the peace talks which are about to take place. These talks are of fateful importance to the future of one of the greatest African nations, and I should not like anything that I say at this Box at this critical time to make the talks more difficult.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most effective steps that he can take towards making the impending peace talks successful is to prevail on the Nigerian authorities to stop the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, and the massacre of women and children in particular? Will he address his mind to that, and create the proper

climate for a peaceful reunification of this war-torn country?

Mr. Thomson: Without accepting the assumptions behind my hon. Friend's question, I think we all agree that a civil war of this character leads to cruel civilian casualties on both sides and that the only way to end those casualties is to bring about a complete cease-fire. I notice that the Federal authorities have repeated their orders against civil targets being attacked.

Mr. Henig: Is not my right hon. Friend being a little disingenuous in hoping for an appeal from both sides to suspend arms sales when one side, namely, the Federal Republic, is receiving arms officially from countries all over the world, including this one, and the other side, Biafra, is receiving no official supplies of arms? Does not he think that it is a shameful position that arms from this country should be used by people indiscriminately to attack civilians and others in what is a civil disturbance in another country?

Mr. Thomson: I have repeated the reasons—I believe that they are on the side of peace—which led us to continue our traditional policy of providing limited quantities of conventional arms to Nigeria, and I need not, I hope, add that the statement that we have provided either bombs or the aircraft to drop them is utterly untrue. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that those who would demand neutrality on our part between the Federal Government and Biafra—and this in effect is what he is urging—should recognise that they are asking the British Government to support a rebellion in a friendly Commonwealth country.

Mr. Taylor: Can we have an up-to-date report on the war? Has Port Harcourt fallen? Did Zambia consult Her Majesty's Government before recognising Biafra?

Mr. Thomson: Zambia had no consultations with us on that issue. Nor would we have expected her to. Our information is that Port Harcourt is now in the hands of the Federal Government.
I ask the House, whose concern about this matter is deep, to note that one of the things which the Federal military authorities sought to do in capturing Port Harcourt was to leave open an


escape route for the Ibo population in order to avoid any danger of massacre.

Mrs. Ewing: Is there any chance that in the peace talks the right hon. Gentleman may be able to obtain speedy information about their children for the Biafran parents who are resident in this country and who have had no information about their children since May, 1967?

Mr. Thomson: Like the hon. Lady, 1, too, have constituents who come from Biafra and share those anxieties. By far the best way to allow families to be reunited is to see that the peace talks are successful.

Viscount Lambton: What is the latest information about casualities so far in the war?

Mr. Thomson: I do not think that anyone has accurate information about the casualties. In one sense, the scale of the fighting has been limited as compared with some other wars. Our information, however, is that in proportion to the scale of the war the casualties have been tragically heavy.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to aid the people of all parts of Nigeria once the fighting stops between the opposing sides in the present civil war.

Mr. George Thomson: It is clear that Nigeria will be faced with a heavy task of post-war relief and reconstruction. The relief of suffering is already an urgent need in areas affected by the fighting. I am glad to be able to announce that it has now been agreed, subject to Parliamentary approval, to make a gift of £20,000 to the British Red Cross Society to assist them with the supply of drugs, medical equipment and special foods. Parliament will be asked in due course to aprove a Supplementary Estimate. In the meantime, an advance will if necessary be sought from the Civil Contingencies Fund.
In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is consulting the Federal Government of Nigeria on the possibility of providing a pediatric unit to work in a selected area of Nigeria which is in special need of help, and also a small team of engineering experts to examine some of the

damage done to public services and communications with a view to giving some assistance towards their restoration.

Mr. Tilney: While I welcome that statement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these medical supplies will be available to both sides? Will he also collaborate with our N.A.T.O. allies and others to see whether we could offer a Commonwealth force or some border force to help keep the ring while discussions go on?

Mr. Thomson: On the question of relief, we expect that the Red Cross will continue to provide help where it is most needed, including the Ibo areas. The rest of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question goes rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but, as he knows, we have very much in mind the crucial importance of providing security safeguards to the Ibo people as part of any settlement and the Government are ready to consider earnestly how they may contribute towards this end.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: It is essential that as much assistance as possible should be given to the stricken areas in the east. What representation has the British High Commission in the Eastern Region?

Mr. Thomson: None.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side warmly welcome the announcement he has made? Rehabilitation will require much more than medical assistance. Has contingency planning on a fairly wide scale already started?

Mr. Thomson: This, of course, is a matter for the Nigerian authorities themselves, but I think that when the time comes they may well think it desirable to ask an international organisation to take the lead. Obviously, a great deal will have to be done, and I hope that many other countries will also contribute.

Gibraltar

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent constitutional talks with the Government of Gibraltar.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the situation in Gibraltar.

Mr. George Thomson: During the week of 6th-13th May, my noble Friend the Minister of State and I had a valuable exchange of views with the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Gibraltar on the situation in Gibraltar, including the constitution. As already announced, I shall be visiting Gibraltar tomorrow to resume the talks.

Mr. Tilney: Whatever may be the ultimate situation, will the right hon. Member agree that what Gibraltarians want is to live in peace with their neighbouring Spaniards to their mutual benefit?

Mr. Thomson: I agree.

Mr. Taylor: What progress has been made in "the constitutional talks?

Mr. Thomson: We began discussions with the Chief Minister when he was here, although there were also the more urgent matters of the recent Spanish restrictions to discuss. I shall be taking the matter further during this week. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is due to go to Gibraltar on 17th June for what will really be the substantive talks on constitutional changes.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend include in the negotiations the recommendations from both sides of the House that we should give financial help to Gibraltarians, particularly to assist in encouraging people from these islands to visit Gibraltar so that the relations between the British and the Gibraltarians can be even more intimate?

Mr. Thomson: These are the very matters I wish to discuss during my visit. It is a good thing that I shall go off on my visit with the views of hon. Members fresh in my ears, but the House will understand if I ration my comments just before going there.

Sir F. Bennett: Will the substantive constitutional talks beginning in June be held in Gibraltar or in London? If the former, why are the Government departing from precedent in not holding a constitutional conference in London?

Mr. Thomson: It is proposed at present to hold the talks in Gibraltar because it is felt to be more convenient and more suitable to their success. But I am going to Gibraltar with an open mind.

Anguilla

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the effect of the internal affairs of the Island of Anguilla on the external affairs.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): Developments in Anguilla do not alter the position established by the West Indies Act, 1967, under which Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for the internal affairs of the Associated State of St. Kitts/Nevis/Anguilla.

Mr. Marten: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the inhabitants of Anguilla wish not to have their link with St. Kitts but to have a more direct link with this country? What action would the Government take under the existing defence agreement if there were an attack by St. Kitts on Anguilla?

Mr. Whitlock: Her Majesty's Government's responsibility is, as I have said, for the State as a whole. Any discussions about the possibility of the need for the defence of one of these islands is something we should not undertake in a hypothetical situation. It is hoped that Anguilla will feel able to a large extent to run its own affairs within the constitutional framework of the State, and that is what we have been trying to bring about.

Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the state of emergency in St. Kitts has been lifted? Will he join with many hon. Members in welcoming this move as a further step towards the restoration of peace in the group of islands?

Mr. Whitlock: That information is correct and we do indeed welcome it.

Rhodesia

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently received from Mr. Ian Smith relating to constitutional settlement of the Rhodesian problem.

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest representations he has received from the head of the de facto Government in Rhodesia, with a view to a settlement of the constitutional problem.

Mr. George Thomson: None, Sir. I should add, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) that the only legal head of Government in Rhodesia is the Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs.

Mr. Biffen: Is it not clear that sanctions have totally failed to induce in Mr. Smith any desire for a constitutional settlement? Is this not a singular commentary on the total lack of success of the Government's policy and is it not time that they reviewed that policy and altered it?

Mr. Thomson: The Government's policy on sanctions has been endorsed and voted upon by both sides of the House. I do not know how far the hon. Gentleman speaks for the Conservative Party. I would certainly not accept that sanctions have failed. They are having a substantial economic effect in Rhodesia, but I still hope that it will be possible to find a fresh opportunity in which a settlement that can be honourably commended to Parliament can be negotiated. There are, however, few signs of that sort of attitude from Mr. Smith at present.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his sound commonsense Scottish nous and ask his colleagues to rid themselves of the unreal Alice in Wonderland atmosphere which surrounds this problem and get a settlement?

Mr. Thomson: The hon. and learned Gentleman had a most disarming preamble to that supplementary question, and I respond by saying that there would by no greater prize for any Commonwealth Secretary of any Government in this country than to get a settlement, but a settlement needs some sort of basis for starting it, and I regret very much that Mr. Smith is saying publicly that he has never accepted the principle of majority rule, which is one of the fundamental principles accepted by both sides of the House and was recently endorsed by the Scottish conference of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Evelyn King: Having regard to the existence of liberal groups in Rhodesia, of which the Forum Group is an example, will the right hon. Gentleman give weight to their view that their task is being rendered impossible by the imposition of sanctions and that the more sanctions that are imposed the further Rhodesia moves to the Right?

Mr. Thomson: I certainly respect the efforts of all those in Rhodesia who are seeking an honourable settlement. I do not accept that it would be right to withdraw sanctions in the present circumstances.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to publish a list of persons who will not be allowed to travel to and from Rhodesia.

Mr. George Thomson: No, Sir.

Mr. Ridley: Since the Government are unable to specify the crimes which these people are supposed to have committed, should they not specify the people who they think will commit the crimes?

Mr. Thomson: I do not think that it would be helpful to publish a list. Indeed, from the point of view of the individuals involved, it would be foolish to give advance warning to these people by the sort of publication—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I want to give my view—the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, and so enable the people concerned to keep their passports for possible travel to the detriment of British interests and those of other countries.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House have received letters from people who have been waylaid on their private travels overseas, having had no notice that that might happen to them, with the result that great inconvenience has been caused to them? Is he aware that I received a letter this morning from a lady stating that she was asked to give the same sort of declaration to get a British passport as Sir Frederick Crawford was asked to give, and that she refused? As this is surely an intolerable situation, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he must at any rate clarify the position?

Mr. Thomson: If the right hon. Gentleman will give me the details of the case he has just mentioned, I will, of course, look into the matter carefully. To answer the first part of his supplementary question, about people in other countries, there have been only two cases and I reported them to the House in the debate last week.

Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend remind the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) that notice was given in this House two years ago that people adhering to the illegal regime ran the danger of having their passports confiscated, which means that clear notice of the dangers which these people are incurring was given?

Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that. Hon. Members may have forgotten that they accepted that proposition at that time without substantial dissent.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whether it be an absurd or a right policy, the only way to make it effective is to use it as a deterrent? This being so, will he be logical in the pursuit of his policy and publish the names, as requested in the Question?

Mr. Thomson: The reasons I gave, from the point of view of British interests, for not publishing these names are quite logical. Whatever doubts there are about the policy—and I know that there are doubts—its deterrent value is substantial.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether there will be an appeal procedure for those refused permission to travel to and from Rhodesia as a result of their breaking sanctions.

Mr. George Thomson: I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on this subject last Wednesday.

Mr. Ridley: Since the British Constitution has always provided appeals for those accused of breaking the law, and since in this case there is no law, should we not at least have a system of appeals so that those wrongly accused may have some chance of establishing their innocence?

Mr. Thomson: I assured the House last week that we would look closely into the question of whether it was practicable, without making impossible the policy on passports as one of the weapons in the general sanctions policy, for Rhodesia to have some kind of review procedure. I remind the hon. Member before he gets too indignant about this, that the arrangements about passports are something which successive Governments have upheld in the whole history of passports.

Mr. Peyton: Does the right hon Gentleman not realise that in such a field at this where the liberties of the subject are involved some very much better protection is needed than the good intentions of temporary and passing Ministers?

Mr. Thomson: I do not think anyone in this House, Minister or otherwise, would take lightly the question of individual liberty, but I think the hon. Member is in some danger of putting the individual liberty of one man against the political freedom and liberty of 4 million Africans we are responsible for in Rhodesia.

Mr. Whitaker: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on asserting that we are talking about the liberty of 4 million Africans? Will he urge that in such circumstances it is time for Rhodesians to come off the fence and individually to come out for law and order or for treason, as they cannot have it both ways and must declare allegiance either to Britain or to anarchy?

Mr. Thomson: The unique and unprecedented situation in Rhodesia faces individuals with an act of conscience and those who are not for us are against us.

Mr. Braine: The Secretary of State must be clearer about this. Apart from those who may be charged with breaking sanctions and for whom at the moment there is no appeal procedure, are we to understand that there is no restriction on travel from this country to Rhodesia and the refusal to allow Mr. Colvin to travel to Portugal without a passport this morning, as reported in the Press, does not represent some new restrictions not yet disclosed to Parliament and the nation?

Mr. Thomson: I can assure the hon. Member that the question of Mr. Colvin


and questions about passport procedure generally are matters for the Foreign Secretary. I have no reason to believe that the procedure there is different from what it has been under previous Governments in this country.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish a White Paper on the condition of the Rhodesian economy since the unilateral declaration of independence.

Mr. Whitlock: No, Sir.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the Commonwealth Secretary repeatedly tells us that sanctions have not failed, which is not the impression gained by those who visit Rhodesia—perhaps that is the reason why the Government wish to re-Strict travel—may we not have the facts set out so that we may really judge the grounds for the Government's optimism? Which is stronger, the Rhodesian pound or the pound sterling?

Mr. Whitlock: We are always anxious to provide the House with as much information as possible, but we would be reluctant to disclose all that is known about the Rhodesian economy, since this would enable the regime to identify and therefore suppress sources of information, and thus to deny us in future information about their economic activities.

British Honduras

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the constitutional future of British Honduras.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the constitutional status of British Honduras following the report of the mediator.

Viscount Lambton: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the future of British Honduras.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will now state his policy towards the proposals of the United States mediator

for the reconciliation of the differences between British Honduras and Guatemala.

Mr. Whitlock: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in the House yesterday, since the draft treaty proposed by the mediator is not acceptable to British Honduras it is not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. The Government of British Honduras have accordingly been informed that we shall not proceed with the treaty. The House of Representatives has unanimously expressed the hope that other means may be found by which the dispute with Guatemala may be settled so as to allow British Honduras to pursue an unimpeded course to sovereign independence. We share that hope.
As regards the territory's constitutional future, our position remains as stated by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of State on 3rd April in reply to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). When proposals are put forward for the independence of British Honduras we shall be ready to consider them.

Dame Joan Vickers: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I ask him to say what next steps her Majesty's Government intend to take?

Mr. Whitlock: I do not think that it would be helpful to speculate today about future developments. We must look for other means of settling this dispute during the time remaining before British Honduras moves to independence. We shall be consulting the Government of British Honduras about that, and I would not wish to make any further statement today.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are already considering the defence arrangements that will be necessary for this small country to maintain its constitutional integrity after independence?

Mr. Whitlock: The defence of an independent British Honduras is one of the many problems which will have to be discussed with the British Hondurans.

Viscount Lambton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many articles have appeared in the Guatemalan Press


recently suggesting an invasion of British Honduras; by Guatemala? In consideration of this, will priority be given to the idea of giving a defence treaty to British Honduras? Can the hon. Gentleman further say when the Mexican Government gave an assurance to Her Majesty's Government that that country's territorial claims to British Honduras had been renounced?

Mr. Whitlock: I am not responsible for what appears in the British Press, let alone what appears in the Press of Guatemala. As I said, the future defence arrangements for this country must now be discussed with the British Hondurans. As for alleged territorial ambitions on the part of Mexico, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday that he had no knowledge that such ambitions existed.

Mr. Fisher: While being thankful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming an undertaking given earlier about the next step in relation to a British Honduras independence conference, may I press him on the question of defence in view of the failure of the mediation and its consequent possible repercussions for British Honduras? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he really should seriously consider a defence undertaking, a guarantee or arrangement of some kind lest independence turns out to be—I hope that I am wrong—quite short-lived?

Mr. Whitlock: At present we have a garrison in British Honduras and we shall naturally wish to do everything possible to defend the country's territorial integrity and see that it is defended; and, as I have said, these are matters which will be the subject of future discussions with that country.

Mr. Henig: Since some arrangement will obviously have to be made with British Honduras and its neighbours before that country becomes independent, would it not be a good idea for the Secretary of State now to invite the leaders of the chief political parties in British Honduras to London to discuss exactly what sort of arrangements they would find acceptable to bring about the independence of their country?

Mr. Whitlock: Only a week ago the House of Representatives of British Honduras unanimously passed the resolution which I described, in which they

expressed the hope that every means might be found to settle the dispute with Guatemala before an unimpeded course to independence took place; and naturally we will be discussing this with the British Hondurans.

Sir J. Rodgers: Would it not be helpful if the hon. Gentleman agreed to have an aerial survey made, since this might be a good preliminary to reaching some agreement between British Honduras and Guatemala on the question of the disputed boundary?

Mr. Whitlock: An aerial survey is certainly a suggestion which we could consider.

Dependent Territories (Ministerial Responsibility)

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have now been made to ensure that the interests of the dependent territories will be safeguarded when there is no longer a Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. George Thomson: The arrangements for the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices are still in process of formulation. It is the Government's firm intention to ensure that the interests of the Dependent Territories are fully safeguarded in whatever organisation is finally adopted for the new Department.

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he bear in mind that a large country such as the Falkland Islands and the Cayman Islands have of their own free will opted to remain with his Department? Will he see that there their interests are safeguarded?

Mr. Thomson: I can give the hon. Lady that absolute assurance. Nothing concerns me more as Commonwealth Secretary in the arrangements for this organisation than making sure that our dependent territories—and many will remain our responsibility for as far ahead as we can see—have their interests safeguarded in the new organisation.

Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether a date has yet been fixed


for the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

Mr. George Thomson: I have as yet nothing to add to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 2nd May to a Question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). —[Vol. 763, c. 1285.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Have we not waited a long time for a reply? If the Government intend to hold a constructive Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference had they not better first negotiate a settlement with Rhodesia, bearing in mind that the last Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference was largely vitiated by the disproportionate amount of time allotted to discussion of Rhodesia, which is a United Kingdom matter and not a matter for the Commonwealth as a whole?

Mr. Thomson: I think we have waited a long time for this to come to the point of an announcement. The hon. Member is perhaps under a misapprehension in believing that this is a responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. The calling of a conference is a matter for the Commonwealth Secretariat. It is still taking soundings about this, although it is being done now with a great sense of urgency and I hope that an announcement will be made soon. I echo the hon. Member's hope that when the conference takes place, while Rhodesia will certainly have to be discussed, it will take its proper place among many other matters which will properly be debated.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether, when Her Majesty visits South America, he will advise her to visit her subjects in the Falkland Islands also.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will advise Her Majesty to include a visit to Her Majesty's loyal subjects in the Falkland Islands during her visit to South America this autumn.

Mr. George Thomson: This possibility has naturally not been overlooked, but there are a number of practical difficulties.

Mr. Fisher: In view of the recent anxieties of the people of the Falkland Islands, now happily allayed, and the possibility of a visit to their country which was the cause of those anxieties, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be both reassuring and extremely popular with the people of the Falkland Islands if Her Majesty visited her Colony?

Mr. Thomson: I have no doubt about the popularity of it. We regard this as an important question, but I must make clear that no decision has yet been taken about a visit to the Argentine.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Without wishing to add to the enormous burdens Her Majesty carries so tirelessly, does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that here there is a unique opportunity to show the fellow feeling and sympathy of all of us in this country with those islanders, so remote, who have suffered much anxiety in the past year or two?

Mr. Thomson: I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said.

British Solomon Islands Protectorate

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to help the trade balance of the British Solomon Islands Protectorate.

Mr. Whitlock: The British Government provide budgetary and capital aid. Among the primary aims of the development programme under which this aid is spent are the establishment of new industries and diversification and expansion of exports. In view of the large quantity of capital goods imported at the present stage of the country's development, an overall adverse trade balance is inevitable. Exports in 1967, however, totalling $A.4·9 million in value, were the highest yet achieved and were 36 per cent. above 1962.

Mr. Godman Irvine: As copra and cocoa have proved unsatisfactory in recent years, has any decision yet been made about oil palm?

Mr. Whitlock: I should need to have notice of that question.

New Hebrides

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in education by the British administration in the New Hebrides.

Mr. Whitlock: Considerable progress has been made in recent years in the development of education in British schools in the New Hebrides on the basis of a plan adopted by the British Administration in 1963 under which expenditure has increased from under £50,000 to almost £200,000 in 1967.
A full answer to the hon. Member's Question involves a considerable amount of detail; I will, with permission, circulate this additional information together with relevant statistics in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Godman Irvine: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. How do our arrangements compare with those of the French?

Mr. Whitlock: Figures of the amount spent on education by the French administration are not available.

Executions

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he is now able to report how many cases there have been over the last ten years in territories under British colonial administration, of executions having taken place one year or more after the accused had been condemned to death.

Mr. Whitlock: There was one such case in the dependent territories for which my right hon. Friend is responsible.
I shall write to the hon. Member when the details are available.

Mr. Hastings: Is the Minister aware that I am still waiting hopefully for this information? Is it not likely to disclose —certainly in the Far East—that it was the exception rather than the rule for a man to be; executed within a year of his conviction?

Mr. Whitlock: I cannot accept that. However long the delay between sentences

and executions in former Colonial Territories may have been, the reasons for such delay had little in common with the recent cases in Rhodesia. In his Question on another occasion the hon. Member mentioned Singapore. I understand that those men were executed on 29th October, 1965, when Singapore was independent.

Dr. David Kerr: Will my hon. Friend confirm that whoever might have been executed over the past 10 years in Colonial Territories at least had access to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and Her Majesty's Prerogative of Mercy? What would the constitutional position have been had that ruling been ignored?

Mr. Whitlock: As my hon. Friend said, those people had access to the Prerogative of Mercy, and this was something which obviously Her Majesty's Government had to maintain.

Passports (Impounding)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish a list of the names of all British citizens, resident in Great Britain, Rhodesia or elsewhere in the Commonwealth, whose passports have been impounded by the British Consular authorities, or other officials acting on their behalf, in Frankfurt since the illegal declaration of independence by Rhodesia.

Mr. George Thomson: There have been only the two cases which I described to the House on 14th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 1041–116.]

Mr. Lloyd: Do not both those instances illuminate with the vividness of a flash of lightning the manner in which the attempt to implement a wholly impractical and unrealistic policy must involve the Administration in an ever-widening series of decisions which, though consistent to the policy as a whole, are individually indefensible, anomalous and utterly ridiculous?

Mr. Thomson: I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman has chosen two most unfortunate cases on which to base such a wide generalisation. The House must remember that we are trying to deal with a very difficult problem, which has now become a major international problem, by


peaceful means, and the use of passports is one of the weapons in this. It certainly raises difficulties, but it is an effort to solve an international problem and bring it to an honourable settlement without any resort to violence or force.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to interfere with the travel of British residents living in South Africa whom the Government know to have aided, directly or indirectly, the economy of Rhodesia?

Mr. Thomson: If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind, I shall be glad to look at them, as I always am.

Mr. F. Gordon Harper (Passport)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will now restore the British passport of Mr. F. Gordon Harper, taken from him in Malta.

Mr. George Thomson: I have nothing to add to what I said in the House on 14th May.

Mr. Worsley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision in this case is widely thought of to be inhumane and unjustified, and also, owing to the record of Mr. Harper, to be a case of mistaken identity?

Mr. Thomson: It is not a case of mistaken identity. I cannot take refuge in that explanation. I explained briefly to the House last week the reason for it. I also said that I am always ready to reconsider these cases. I have explained to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), who has raised this matter with me in correspondence, how I should be willing to deal with it.

Mr. Braine: Has not the right hon. Gentleman yet grasped the point, that if a known opponent of the Smith regime and a respected businessman can be treated in this way on what I can only describe as a trumped-up excuse, as I am ready to prove to the right hon. Gentleman, there is no hope whatsoever of persuading moderate opinion in Rhodesia to return to the path of legality?

Mr. Thomson: I cannot accept that premise. As I have explained earlier, I

think that the use of passports and the strength of feeling that generated in Rhodesia is an indication of how much of a deterrent value this weapon has in the total sanctions policy. In regard to the individual case, I am ready in present circumstances to reconsider this carefully, and I will listen most carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us on this side of the House find it increasingly nauseating that hon. Members opposite are interested only in the welfare of so-called respectable businessmen and so-called distinguished ex-governors, and are not at all interested in the sufferings of millions of ordinary coloured citizens of Rhodesia?

Mr. Thomson: The House must remember that it has conflicting responsibilities. It has its responsibility for the rights of individual British citizens holding British passports, which is not to be taken lightly, and it equally has the responsibility for the political freedom of 4 million Africans in Rhodesia. My charge against the Opposition is that they have these two things hopelessly out of perspective.

ADULT EDUCATION (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister which Ministers are responsible for retraining, apprenticeships, and further part-time education after secondary schooling.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): My right hon. Friends the First Secretary of State, the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland, Sir.

Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason for the recent backlash on colour was fear amongst many unskilled and semi-skilled workers that their jobs would disappear with increasing automation and mechanisation, as in the London docks? Is not there a strong case for a full-scale inquiry by the Government into the future position of semi-skilled and unskilled workers?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the anxieties here. He


will know about the increase in the programme of both Government training centres and industrial training. I am sure it is right to maintain the division between Ministerial responsibilities, with practical training being undertaken in industry being the responsibility of industry and vocational education being connected with the public education service.

Mr. R. Carr: But will the Prime Minister do something more to increase the retraining programme, both for the reasons mentioned by his hon. Friend and for general industrial reasons? Is he aware that the present programme is totally inadequate?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have been pushing on with this very fast. Against 17 training centres when we took office, there are now 38, and present plans provide for 55. Those are Government training centres. The right hon. Gentleman, who had some responsibility, will also know how much has been done by successive Governments to get the industrial training programme into full swing.

EXPORT DRIVE (TRADES UNION CONGRESS)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister what further consultations he proposes with the leaders of the Trades Union Congress to encourage the nation's export drive.

The Prime Minister: The House will know of the series of meetings currently taking plce between Her Majesty's Government and the Economic Committee of the Trades Union Congress. It is planned to devote one of these meetings—at which my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and the President of the Board of Trade will represent the Government—specifically to export promotion and import saving. The last meeting of the series, under my chairmanship, will cover the whole field of economic policy.

Mr. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to discuss the very useful contributions in paragraphs 131–141 of the T.U.C. Economic Review, including the suggested British export corporation, and make it clear that there is no limit to growth in an export-based

industry except the ability to sell overseas and to deliver on time?

The Prime Minister: The last point my hon. Friend made is the whole basis of our statements on the prospects of industrial expansion this year. I have already had one discussion with the T.U.C. on the relevant paragraphs. As to the export corporation, my hon. Friend will be aware that, following the Report of the Denman Committee, we now have a new element in our overseas trade drive, on the lines suggested by the T.U.C.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Would not this be a suitable subject on which the Prime Minister could break his silence and appear on television, as he appears to have gone on to a care and maintenance basis?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir—nothing of the kind. I discussed this on a number of regional industrial tours, and I discussed the same question with members of the export committees. I hope that the whole House will do what it can to further the appointment of export committees in these and other regions.

RACE RELATIONS

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister to co-ordinate a programme of education against racialism.

The Prime Minister: The House already knows of the co-ordinating functions of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the field of race relations. I have no further appointment in mind, Sir.

Dr. Kerr: That is a very disappointing reply. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that recent events demonstrated that even intellectuals, covering the whole range from dockers right down to ex-professors of Greek poetry, have been misinformed on this subject—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be brief.

Dr. Kerr: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a case for a special appointment covering the whole range of education, both adult and that affecting schoolchildren in this matter?

The Prime Minister: I cannot think that any Ministerial appointment or any Government expenditure could hope to educate at least one of the persons referred to by my hon. Friend in this field. But my hon. Friend will be aware that in addition to the work done by Ministers and hon. Members on both sides of the House, in their speeches, there is also the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, whose grant has recently been increased, which is doing very valuable work on a local basis in this matter of education.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, however many questions of this nature may be addressed to him by his fellow-travelling do-gooders, the British people simply do not—repeat not—want a multi-racial society?

The Prime Minister: If that question represents the considered view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I tremble to think who he goes fellow travelling with.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Not very good at all.

Mr. Tapsell: Can the Prime Minister tell us how much money is being transferred to the 57 local authorities facing particular immigrant problems which he promised to help in his recent speech on the subject?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary he can have whatever details are available with particular reference to the Section 11 expenditure under the 1956 Local Government Act. But, as he will know from what my right hon. Friend has said, we are surveying the problem of further help not only to the 57 towns where there is above a certain proportion of immigrants, but others where the problems of urban housing and schools are particularly urgent.

CITIZENS' GRIEVANCES

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for further legislation to provide for the independent investigation of citizens' grievances.

The Prime Minister: None at present, Sir. The Parliamentary Commissioner

has been at work for less than 14 months and the House has only just received the Select Committee's first Report.

Mr. Whitaker: Since the Government's very welcome extension of the protection of the rights of the individual by introducing the Parliamentary Commissioner, which the previous Administration failed to do, would my right hon. Friend agree that the same arguments for independent investigation apply to allegations against the police, hospitals, nationalised industries and the Armed Forces?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that these were not included, in the first instance, in the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner, whose contribution to solving these problems we shall want to study after he has been at work for a suitable period of time. But there are adequate provisions for inquiries concerning the police under existing legislation, and also, of course, in relation to hospitals and the other cases mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will the Prime Minister, in considering this question, not lose sight of the fact that the citizens' principal grievance at the moment is that there is already far too much ill-digested legislation?

Mr. Fitt: Is the Prime Minister aware that 1½ million British subjects in Northern Ireland do not have the opportunity to take their grievances to a Parliamentary Commissioner? In view of this, would the Prime Minister not now regard the time as opportune to have further discussions on the subject with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who is at present in danger of being overthrown by a Right-wing Fascist clique?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern I expressed on the very point he made in answer to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) when this matter last came up at Question Time. I indicated then what I thought was the right way of dealing with the problem. I am sure the whole House will join with my hon. Friend in deploring the reports which we have read in the Press of these vicious attacks on the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland who, all of us recognise, has gone a great


way—not anything like far enough to meet many hon. Members—and shown considerable courage in what he has done.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On the question of citizens' grievances in the United Kingdom, may I suggest a General Election?

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that we all understand the sympathy which he feels for the vicious attacks being made on the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland? Could he tell us, as a result of his talks, why the Ulster Government have not thought it necessary to have an Ombudsman for grievances in that part of the United Kingdom, whereas it has been the overwhelming wish of this House of Commons that the grievances of citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom should have swift redress from an Ombudsman here?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's wording in the early part of his question was unfortunate. I was expressing sympathy with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in respect of the vicious attacks, not what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Concerning the talks with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, while nearly the whole House is impatient about this matter—and I share that impatience—the right hon. Gentleman will not under-rate what has been done and the strong backlash into which the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has run as a result of what he has done. Nevertheless, I am sure that nearly all right hon. and hon. Members would wish him to proceed much further and much faster as soon as he can.

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will co-ordinate action by Government Departments in Human Rights Year to eliminate religious discrimination.

The Prime Minister: Existing arrangements for co-ordination are I think adequate, Sir, but if my hon. Friend has any particular point in mind I would, of course, be happy to consider it.

Mr. Whitaker: Can my right hon. Friend, first, say whether any public

offices, such as the Lord Chancellor's, carry religious criteria? Secondly, does he agree that before we sign the United Nations or the European Convention of Human Rights, we must have provision against religious discrimination in all parts of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I have already answered the part which he has in mind in referring to all parts of the United Kingdom.
Concerning individual positions—the Lord Chancellor has been mentioned— I have not checked this recently. I think there was legislation of this kind. I shall have to study it to see what the present position is.

Mr. Fortescue: Does the Prime Minister agree that in Great Britain the elimination of religious discrimination is best left to the tolerance and good sense of the people rather than to Government intervention?

The Prime Minister: That has been the basis on which we have been conducting these affairs over a considerable time. It is on the question of race, as opposed to the question of religion, that we have introduced the Race Relations Bill.

HOME SECRETARY (SPEECH)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on British Broadcasting Corporation television on 29th April about the provision of financial assistance to facilitate the return of Commonwealth immigrants to their countries of origin represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. As to the precise criteria governing financial assistance in these cases I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security to a Question by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) on 8th April.—[Vol. 762, c. 169.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the Home Secretary on television, to the largest possible audience, suggested that there


was a general scheme providing for assisted passages for those migrants who desired to return to their former countries, will the right hon. Gentleman now make clear whether this is so or not?

The Prime Minister: That was not how I read my right hon. Friend's broadcast. I did not see it, but he said that the Social Security Ministry now will repatriate any family unable to pay for itself and willing to go back. That was the basis of the answer of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security which I quoted a few minutes ago.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to make it clear that all this talk about returning immigrants in any significant numbers to their home countries, which have low standards of living, is irrelevant to the problem? Very few, if any, are likely to go. It merely distracts people from dealing with the real problems in this very important matter.

The Prime Minister: That point has been made recently by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department as recently as last weekend.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister consider financial assistance for the immigrant population of Rhodesia if at any time in future they wish to return to their various countries of origin?

The Prime Minister: That will be no idle threat.

Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is becoming more and more clear that there are many immigrants who did not want to come here and do not want to stay? Would it not be a human kindness to allow, encourage and financially help such people to return to their own countries?

The Prime Minister: I have already indicated the basis on which the Government provide financial assistance in those cases where the return of immigrants would mean a net saving of public expenditure.

FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will define the duties of the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when acting as First Secretary of State.

Mr. John Page: asked the Prime Minister what are the duties of the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in her capacity as First Secretary of State.

The Prime Minister: In her capacity as First Secretary of State my right hon. Friend's duties will be such as from time to time are allotted to her. As the House knows, however, it is not the general practice to specify in detail the duties attaching to offices of this kind.

Mr. Marten: As the office of First Secretary seems to have become almost a status symbol, is it not time that it was dropped, unless there was something specific to do in being First Secretary?

The Prime Minister: I can well remember, when the post of First Secretary was created, that it was held by Lord Butler, and we had some idea of the manifold functions which he undertook outside as well as inside the House.

Mr. Page: The Prime Minister read his Answer so quickly that I did not hear what he said. Am I right in saying that the right hon. Lady is a kind of "overlady" at the D.E.A., the Ministry of Technology and the Board of Trade when questions of prices and incomes arise?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear the original Answer, but on the last part of his question, as I have said, my right hon. Friend has general responsibility for the co-ordination of prices and incomes and productivity. In addition, of course, she has the traditional duties previously carried on by the Minister of Labour in respect of incomes questions in particular.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTION

Mr. Milne: On a point of order. I rise to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a Private Notice Question, which I wished to table earlier today, dealing with one of the outstanding sea rescues of modern times—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must know that he cannot raise, under the guise of a point of order, the subject matter of a Private Notice Question which Mr. Speaker has refused to entertain.

CRIMES OF ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION (DEFENCE)

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide a defence in all cases of crimes of absolute prohibition.
I may be asked, what is a crime of absolute prohibition, and, to judge from the mood of the House, it appears to be to introduce a Ten Minute Rule Bill just before a major debate. However, the House will notice that, in my Bill, I am providing a defence for that offence. My defence now is that I did not select today's business but had already put down my Motion some time ago, and that this is the procedure which the House has ordained shall be followed in questions of this kind.
This is a most important matter. Some weeks ago, the country was astounded to find that a young girl could be convicted of an offence of managing premises in which cannibis was being smoked—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but if I am right the young lady has an appeal pending on this matter. If that is so, the matter is now sub judice.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: On a point of order. It is not right that the sub judice rule does not apply if the House is discussing new legislation? Does not leave to bring in a Bill come under the heading of new legislation?

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that the purpose of the sub judice rule was to protect the person involved. I believe that it would be invoked in this case. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Bill in general terms and not refer to a case which is sub judice.

Mr. Lyon: Of course, I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. But it may at some time be necessary for the House to consider why it should be more limited in the application of the sub judice rule than newspapers, who can already comment on cases which have gone to appeal. However, I had not intended to discuss the merits of that case. It is simply that it brought to public attention the whole


problem of crimes of absolute prohibition. What I seek to do is to show the House and perhaps the country that this is no isolated case of one piece of legislation. This is not simply a question of one part of the drugs legislation, but affects a wide variety of offences and is becoming an increasing feature of statutory offences.
It began towards the end of the last century, when some offences relating to the provision of food and drugs were interpreted to mean that the person could be convicted even though he did not intend to commit an offence, had no knowledge of it and had taken full care to provide against the commission of the offence. This was gradually extended to a whole range of what are called "welfare cases", which relate not only to the provision of food and drink and the question of licensing, but also, for instance, to safety in factories. Section 14 of the Factories Act, which relates to fencing of machinery and is widely used in the courts, contains, of course, a criminal offence of absolute prohibition.
But it goes wider still, because it affects many serious crimes which the House might be surprised to learn are offences of absolute prohibition. It is, for instance, an offence to drive a motor car in a manner dangerous to the public in all the circumstances, even if one did one's incompetent best to keep within the law. It is, for instance, an offence of statutory prohibition to drive a car without having in force a certificate of third party insurance, even though one thought that one was insured and had taken all reasonable steps to see that one was. If by a mischance one was not insured, one could be convicted of this serious offence and disqualified for driving.
It was, until recently, an offence to marry a woman bigamously even though one thought on reasonable grounds that one had been divorced and it is only recently that the Court of Appeal has changed its mind about this interpretation of the law. It is still an offence for a man to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16, even though, on reasonable grounds, he thought that she was 21.
This kind of offence is widely used to achieve certain social purposes. The

Times leading article on 3rd May said there were some kinds of offences in which this type of prohibition was necessary and desirable. It said:
The appropriateness of absolute liability in certain types of case need not be questioned….
It also said that there are reasons in these welfare cases why it is necessary to have this provision
… where, in balancing the public advantage in strict enforcement against the possible injustice of penalising someone who is not personally culpable, it is reasonable to take the more severe course.
I do not believe that human freedom and dignity is expendable in that way. There are, of course, occasions when the interests of one person conflict with those of another and society has to try to strike a balance, but in such circumstances there is a balance of advantage to society.
There is no balance of advantage in the case of crimes of strict prohibition, because by making an absolutely unattainable standard of behaviour we say to a man who has done his best to do what can reasonably be expected of him, "You are still guilty of a criminal offence, even though you did your best to avoid such an offence." That brings the law into disrepute.
It is no good saying, as some defenders of this practice say, that the court can always impose a very minor penalty. Men have been sent to prison, deported, and heavily fined for offences of this nature, but even if the only sentence, perhaps on a little shopkeeper charged with one of these welfare offences, is an absolute discharge, it is, nevertheless, a disgrace for him in his locality and can affect his living and his mode of life.
I suggest that the way in which we should approach this problem is to put the burden on the accused of showing that he has done all that could be reasonably expected of him to avoid contravention of the law. What I want to do is bring in a Bill which will give a defence in all these cases that the man himself shall prove, first, that he did not intend to commit the act, and, second, that he had taken all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of the act.
In such circumstances, anyone then convicted of these offences will be a person who has some moral blame.


Society will be able to say that the law has been effectively enforced in those cases where it is desirable to enforce it. In every other case it is neither desirable nor to the public advantage to enforce it. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. Carlisle, Mr. Archer, and Mr. Whitaker.

CRIMES OF ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION (DEFENCE)

Bill to provide a defence in all cases of crimes of absolute prohibition, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th May, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (VISITORS)

Mr. Montgomery: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance Mr. Speaker on a point that has caused great inconvenience to some hon. Members this morning? Because this House was sitting, those of us who had parties coming round here found that we were— [Interruption.] I am sorry if some hon. Members opposite object to this, but it is an important point. People arrange these visits a long time in advance. [Interruption.] If hon. Members would be quiet and allow me to finish—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would do better to address the Chair.

Mr. Montgomery: I realise that the business of Parliament must go on, but the point I wish to raise was that hon. Members were not allowed to take their visitors into the other place unless they took them six at a time. As the feeling is that next week will be rather a busy one, from a Parliamentary point of view, and as other hon. Members will be taking parties round, could this matter be looked at, Sir, so that other hon. Members do not have the inconvenience that most of us have had today?

Mr. Speaker: One of my duties is to protect this place against the other place. The last thing, therefore, that Mr. Speaker

could do would be to interfere with the other place. What happened last night and this morning took place according to one of the Standing Orders of the House. It involves the kind of inconvenience that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but Mr. Speaker can do nothing about it.

TRANSPORT BILL (AVAILABILITY)

Mr. Peter Walker: May I raise a point of order, of which I have given you prior notice, Mr. Speaker? Last week, when Standing Committee F, which is dealing with the Transport Bill, completed its duties, the House was informed that a copy of the Bill, as reported by the Committee, would not be available until Saturday.
Hon. Members, inquiring at the Public Bill Office on Friday were informed that there was no copy of the Bill available. They would need it for the purpose of moving Amendments. Yet among the Amendments to the Bill tabled by the Government on Friday—and the Government were doubtless in possession of a copy of the Bill in proof stage—there are a number of Amendments tabled by Government backbenchers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] By the fact that they mentioned the line and the page it meant that some Government backbenchers must have been in possession of copies of the Transport Bill which were not available to the House. I would have thought that this was not a correct procedure, and I would like your guidance.

Mr. Speaker: I must deal with this briefly, because we have important business ahead. I have inquired into the point of order raised by the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me know, with his characteristic courtesy, of his intention to do so because it has enabled me to make inquiries of the authorities of the House, to ascertain whether anything irregular has occurred in the offices under my authority.
I find that the Transport Bill, as amended, was issued by the Public Bill Office on Saturday morning, 18th May, in accordance with the Order of the House of 15th May, that the Bill, as amended in Standing Committee, should


be printed. I am further assured that no Member on either side of the House could have had access to a proof copy of the Bill during the time that it was being checked in the Public Bill Office. None of the Officers of the House can throw any light on the situation as described by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Walker: Further to that point of order. This is surely an impossible situation, Mr. Speaker. If this did not occur among the Officers of the House, it means that Ministers must have placed in the hands of their back benchers copies of a Bill that was not available to Members on this side of the House. On this particular matter, because the Business Committee was deciding the timetabling of the Report stage of the Bill, there was a very considerable advantage in being able to table Amendments as soon as possible. Surely this is an appropriate matter for the Government to explain further.

Mr. Speaker: I can rule only on the matter as far as it affects my staff. I have done so. The rest is a matter for the House.

Mr. Grimond: Further to that point of order. May we have this matter expanded? It is impossible to believe that these back benchers were guided by a

hidden spirit as to the likely line of the Bill. We must have a statement from the Government as to whether they made the Bill available to their back benchers.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): In view of what has been said I will certainly give an assurance that I will look into this and, if something has been done—

Hon. Members: Answer now.

Mr. Peart: As far as I know, it has not happened. [An HON. MEMBER: "You should."] I do not know. If there has been something of this kind I will look into it and make a statement to the House.

Mr. Heath: Following upon that, would it not be right that, if the Bill had not been published, Amendments ought not to be accepted and published at all, Mr. Speaker? When you are considering this matter could you also consider that? Meantime, we will await a statement from the Leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker: All I can do is consider this as far as my Department is concerned. I will certainly look into the right hon. Gentleman's point. It is one which gives me, for the moment, a little concern.

Orders of the Day — PRICES AND INCOMES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first speaker in the debate, may I announce that so far more than 40 hon. and right hon. Gentleman have indicated their wish to speak in this debate—including more than 30 Members on the Government side. I shall do my best to see that all shades of opinion are represented in the debate, but it will be possible only if hon. and right hon. Members make their speeches reasonably brief.

3.47 p.m.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is the third time that the Government have asked this House to support a Prices and Incomes Bill. I am well aware of the unhappiness that this is causing among so many of my hon. Friends, as well as the fact that it is being rejected by the Opposition. It is clearly essential, therefore, that I should begin by clearing up misunderstandings as to what our prices and incomes policy is designed to do, and where it fits into our economic strategy.
The starting point must be devaluation. This was designed to enable us to turn our backs on deflationary policies and to expand the economy on the only safe basis open to us—that of an export-led boom. The new Bill has, therefore, a very different economic parentage from the previous ones. We are no longer asking the people to hold down wage increases as part of an overall reduction in the level of economic activity. We are rather asking them to help us exploit the new opportunities which devaluation has brought to get our economy expanding again—not through a consumer-led boom, such as we had under the Conservatives in 1964, with the disastrous results of which we are all aware —but on a basis which will at last give us the economic independence that we have not enjoyed for half a century.
Time and again my hon. Friends have asked the Government to put themselves in a position where they could defy the "gnomes", whether of Zurich or the City of London.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise makes no contribution to the debate and takes up some of the time available for serious debate. I am speaking to both sides of the House.

Mrs. Castle: Time and again they have protested against a situation in which speculators against sterling could jeopardise the standard of living of our own people. We have listened to them: that is why we devalued last November instead of deflating once again. But, when we did so, we warned that there would be inevitable economic consequences. One of them is that we have got to show that we can compete economically at the new parity. For, if we do not, we shall be under the same old pressures once again.
The problem with which the Labour Government have struggled ever since October, 1964 is that we inherited a country which had become industrially uncompetitive. On one economic front after another we could no longer hold our own: from shipbuilding to machine tools. This meant that every attempt to expand our economy ended in disaster, because our manufacturers and our consumers did not use their increased purchasing power to re-equip with British goods, but with imported ones.
During the past three years the Government's major preoccupation has been to deal with this basic uncompetitiveness. As a result, this country is in the middle of a major industrial transformation, as has been recognised by a wide spectrum of opinion, from the Daily Express to Marc Ullman, of France's L'Express. Typically, the only contribution from Her Majesty's Opposition has been to exploit the short-term discontents of the people during the period of transition, as it did from 1945 to 1951. In opposing the Bill today they are neither facing up to their own failures nor putting forward any constructive alternative policy.
That phasing-out of old technologies and the building up of new takes a lot of time, and time is what we have lacked in the last three years, thanks


to our inherited burden of short-term indebtedness, to which this Government have, unfortunately, been compelled to add, pending the development of more constructive alternatives. If we now want to break free of this burden by eliminating the deficit in our balance of payments which is still hanging around our necks, we dare not let slip the opportunity which devaluation has given us: the opportunity now being seized by an increasing number of our industries; by the aerospace and motor car industries now facing an export boom, and by the machine tool industry, which has increased its export orders since devaluation by 50 per cent.
Where does prices and incomes policy fit into this? My hon. Friends, in their Amendment, protest against what they call the Government's "grossly mistaken theory" that wage levels are the cause of the nation's difficulties. If that were the Government's theory, it would indeed be a mistaken one. Wage levels in this country are not particularly high in absolute terms, certainly not for a number of wage-earners, and the Government eagerly look forward to the day when a high wage, low-cost economy will be within our reach—for all our people, not just a few of them.
No, in putting forward this Bill, we are not saying that wage levels are too high in themselves, but that they are too high in relation to what we are producing, and what we are managing to sell abroad, and also what we are managing to sell at home in place of imported goods. That is why we have always talked in terms of a productivity, prices and incomes policy, and, as the latest White Paper shows, productivity is the centrepiece of the new phase of incomes policy.
I do not think that there is any disagreement between us that what matters is not wage levels, but unit costs. "Ah, but", say some of my hon. Friends, "why put so much emphasis on the wages element?" Are not unit costs as much influenced by other factors, such as level of investment, economic activity and managerial efficiency? Of course, they are. The Government do not for a moment say that the salvation of the country rests exclusively on the shoulders of the trade union movement. What we

do say is that the level of investment is closely linked to the prospects of growth, and that the hope of growth, which is our only hope at the moment, rests on our success in expanding exports. Here and now it depends overwhelmingly on our ensuring that the competitive advantage given to us by devaluation is not whittled away by increases in incomes that we have not earned. We must not have a repetition of the sort of growth that we had in 1964, when gross domestic product rose by 6 per cent., but, because our industrial home base was so weak, we also ran up the highest deficit in our post-war history.
I agree with my hon. Friends, too, that good management has a vital part to play in reducing unit costs, and that when we call for higher productivity, efficiency and cost-consciousness, we must look first and foremost to management to carry out its responsibilities. That is why we are pressing ahead with the long overdue expansion of management training, but we need also to build into the prices and incomes policy economic pressures on management to be efficient.
This is what we are doing by renewing the existing powers on prices in the Bill and by strengthening them. Of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite sneer at these powers and will vote against them with enthusiasm—there was no control over prices in their policy. All they did was to hold down wages. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) was sneering last weekend when he said that I was trying to "con" the people of the country over prices.

Lieut-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Lieut-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford) rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mrs. Castle: That is a terminological inexactitude.
I have said bluntly time and again that we face inevitable price rises of 5 per cent. this year. But this is no reason for turning a blind eye to unnecessary price increases. Indeed, it would undermine our whole strategy, not least for import substitution, if the prices of home-produced goods were allowed to creep up unchecked and unjustified under the generalised alibi of devaluation or the Budget. The Prices and Incomes


Board, exists to see, and will help us to ensure, that management is as public-spirited and as cost-conscious as we are asking wage-earners to be.
Many hon. Members who would go along with me thus far take issue with me on my next point, the need to take statutory powers to reinforce this policy, or, at any rate, they argue that we do not need statutory powers on the incomes side. The T.U.C., they say, is developing its own collective vetting of the processes of free bargaining. Leave them to get on with it. I am the first to pay tribute to the historic development of the T.U.C.'s positive rôle. I recognise that the T.U.C. has shown great statesmanship. But I believe that the trade unions recognise in their heart of hearts that, in this crucial situation, the Government cannot abdicate their responsibilities. They know their own machinery is not yet strong enough to work without some statutory underpinning, all the more because those unions who are most vociferous against the Bill reject the T.U.C.'s vetting machinery as well.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, by taking statutory powers in the Bill, it is made extremely difficult for the T.U.C. to operate its voluntary powers and that in fact the whole position is made far more difficult for the T.U.C. than ever before?

Mrs. Castle: No, I would not accept that interpretation, and I have no evidence to support the assumption behind my hon. Friend's question.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Sir W. Bromley-Davenport rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Hon.Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is for the right hon. Lady to decide whether she gives way and to whom she gives way.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: What has the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) got that I have not?

Mrs. Castle: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has answered his own question.
To my hon. Friends to whom this is a great issue of principle, I would say this. We have, first of all, to decide

whether we agree that planning the growth of incomes should form part of our overall economic planning. If we do, we are already turning our back on traditional attitudes to wage bargaining. This is really the great divide in the trade union movement—far more than the question of statutory powers. For we all recognise—and the Government recognise—that an incomes policy cannot work if the whole concept is repugnant to the trade union movement and if it has to be imposed by the use of compulsory powers. But this is not what has been happening.
In recommending Part I of the Bill to the House, therefore, I want to stress this point. In Clauses 1 and 2, we are renewing until the end of 1969 the powers of statutory notification and standstill, where necessary, of pay and price increases which we possess under Part II of the 1966 Act and under Sections 1 to 3 of the Act of 1967. But in doing so, we recognise that these provisions are, and must be, in the nature of reserve powers. The policy itself can only work if the vast majority of firms and trade unions are prepared to co-operate—as they are prepared.
During the two years that the policy has been operating, it has never been necessary to invoke the penal clauses of the 1966 Act, but, even more important, it has never been necessary to make an Order requiring statutory notification of a pay or price increase, so successful has the system of voluntary notification been.
The same is broadly true of standstills. Out of about 80 references to the Board in the same period, of which about half were in respect of pay claims, there have been only three cases where we have had to order employers not to pay while the Board was investigating. In all the other cases, the reference, whether of a pay or price increase, was accepted by the parties concerned and, where standstills were necessary, they were accepted voluntarily.
In Part I, therefore, we are continuing the present powers, which have truly operated as reserve powers designed to encourage voluntary co-operation by ensuring that the vast majority who cooperate are not exploited by the minority who do not. There are only three new developments in Part I to which I should


draw the attention of the House. The first is in Clause 3, subsections (1) to (3), which give power to increase the standstill period for both pay and prices increases to an overall 12 months, but only on a recommendation of the Board.
The second development is in Clause 3(4), which is a transitional provision to bridge the gap between the existing permitted length of a standstill and the new one proposed. It gives me power to make an amending Order in respect of a standstill under the 1967 Act that might still be operative when this new Measure becomes law. The third is the new provision in relation to wages councils awards, outlined in Clause 5 and Schedule 2. Since this has given rise to some misunderstanding, I would like to explain it carefully.
One of the key aims of our policy is to ensure that priority is given to the lower paid worker. Historically, this was the purpose of the wages councils, but they are under no obligation, as the Government are, to have regard to the consequences of their recommendations on other workers in their field who may not be low paid. Yet I am statutorily bound to accept their proposals and, indeed, to enforce them by law. It would be anomalous for me to be compelled to enforce pay increases contrary to the criteria on which we are insisting for other pay claims. The new provisions, therefore, put wages council and Agricultural Wages Board awards on the same basis as other settlements. I shall still not be able to amend them, but, after consideration and discussion, I shall be able to refer them to the Board and, if its report is adverse, postpone bringing them into effect.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Is not the effect of Clause 5 and Schedule 2, therefore, virtually to put the Agricultural Wages Board out of business?

Mrs. Castle: I do not think that they do that for a moment. I think that that Board still has continuing and useful work to do. It is clearly incompatible with the purposes of the incomes policy that it should not be possible even to consider its proposals in the context of the consequences for other workers. That is all that the Clause enables me to do.

In fact, I believe that the necessity for a reference will rarely arise, but, if it does, we will not be discriminating against the lower-paid worker. On the contrary, the Board must be guided by the criteria of the White Paper, which deliberately set out to give priority to the lower paid.
The rest of the Bill is concerned with extending our powers over prices, dividends and rents. In a previous debate, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) said that these powers would take this country over the hump and "into a Socialist State". Well, they are certainly designed to ensure that the operation of the policy shall be as socially just as we can make it. During the past two years, we have been steadily evolving and strengthening our watch over prices, with very welcome cooperation from the manufacturers. To-day, about 70 per cent. of the expenditure covered by the Retail Price Index is subject to the "early warning" arrangements for price increases of which the latest list is given in the White Paper, to the "constant watch" kept by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over food prices, or to the review of price trends in non-food items carried out by the responsible Departments.
We are currently discussing with manufacturers and firms additions to the early warning list. Here again, the policy has been operating, as it must, largely on a voluntary basis and, as a result, the very real influence that the Government have had on price increases has very often gone unrecognised by the public—though it has been recognised well enough by the manufacturers who know full well in how many cases intended price increases have been dropped or deferred as a result of their talks with the Ministries—the cases, for example, of bread and flour, animal feeding stuffs, biscuits, chocolates and sweets, soft drinks, cement, to name only a few. Another example is beer, most of whose public bar prices, apart from increase in duty, have been held unchanged for over two years as a result of pressure from the Government and the Prices and Incomes Board.
But, much as we appreciate the cooperation we have had from firms, we have not treated them more lightly than anyone else, and indeed about half the references to the Board have been in respect of prices and charges. In all cases,


except those where discussions are still continuing, the industries and firms concerned have acted in keeping with the Board's recommendations. But we have recognised, also, as has the C.B.I., that there may be cases in which price reductions should take place, and in the White Paper we spell out the criteria for such reductions, which have been agreed with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.
The sort of cases we have in mind are those where the price of raw materials has fallen, where productivity is rising faster than wages or where profits are based on excessive market power. In other words, we want to encourage both trade unions and management to recognise that there is a third party to their bargains, the consumer, who has a right to share in the benefits of technological advance or changes in the prices of raw materials.
Clause 4, therefore, gives me power, when referring prices and charges to the Board, to direct the Board to take into account the possibility of price reductions and, where it recommends any reduction, I can enforce it by Order if necessary for a period of 12 months. Petrol and oil prices are an example which I have quoted of cases where price reductions might be possible. As the Minister of Power has emphasised, the Government have been keeping the surcharge element in the prices of petroleum products under close review and we are currently considering the situation as it has developed in recent months.
Nor do we say that the potential for reducing prices is to be found only in the private sector. There are publicly-owned industries that are making great technical advances and should be able to reduce their prices in due course. A classical example of this is in electricity supply. This industry has been installing plants of bigger and bigger capacity, which should have shown falling costs and, therefore, falling prices. In fact, as the Prices and Incomes Board has shown, delays in building and commissioning these plants have put off the cost savings which could have meant a smaller increase in electricity charges than the Government have, in fact, been compelled to endorse. We are now investigating the reasons for these delays, and will not hesitate to take action to prevent

them in the future. I want to make one thing clear: prices policy will apply equally stringently to the public as to the private sector.

Mr. John Lee: Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to give directions to firms in which the Government have equity shareholdings or a controlling interest as to holding or reducing prices?

Mrs. Castle: I cannot possibly answer such a generalised question. It is clearly a matter for discussion of specific cases. My hon. Friend will have other opportunties of raising the point.
Some of the most valuable work of the Prices and Incomes Board has been done in the context of general references. This was so in the case of retail margins, where the Board pointed out that
in most circumstances there is no need for an increase in distributors' cash margins when manufacturers increase their recommended prices as a result of devaluation.
This is exactly the sort of inflationary follow-up to devaluation that we want to check. That is why, a few days ago, we referred retail margins on paint, where the Board found the mark-up could be as high as 80 per cent., to the Board for detailed examination, and why I am today referring distributors' margins in three other significant sectors of consumers' expenditure—household textiles, children's clothing and proprietary medicines. These references relate to margins covering the whole field, not only to those cases where manufacturers themselves recommend retail prices.
I would remind my hon. Friends that, unless we renew Part II of the 1966 Act through this Bill, the power of the Government to hold up price increases pending a full examination by the Board, will come to an end.
And now I turn to rents. These form a crucial part of family budgets—indeed, by far the biggest element in the increase which has taken place in the retail index since the middle of 1966 has been the cost of housing, which has risen by no less than 10 points during this period. We are, therefore, proposing to take powers to insulate tenants against sharp increases that could undermine the balance of the prices and incomes policy. The provisions fall into two parts.
Clause 9 deals with the private sector and gives the Housing Ministers power to make regulations for moderating rent increases in regulated tenancies under the Rent Act, 1965. We do not intend to interfere with the basis on which fair rents are fixed or with the provisions under which fair rents may be reviewed. But the Government consider it right, in the context of the prices and incomes policy, to phase the steep increases which we know can result from the registration of a fair rent. Our intention is that the controls should apply throughout the country and irrespective of the rateable value of the house, within the limits of the 1965 Rent Act.
In the first year following registration there will be a limit of 10s. per week on the amount by which the rent may be increased. If the regulations are still in force at the end of that year, any significant balance remaining to bring the rent up to the fair rent will be spread over two further stages so that the full fair rent will be reached at the end of the second year. Increases due to rises in rates will be exempt from these staging arrangements and, broadly speaking, increases due to rises in the cost of services provided by the landlord will also be exempted. My right hon. Friends intend to make the regulations to bring the scheme into operation immedately the Bll becomes law.
Clauses 10 and 11 deal with local authority rent increases. The Government have consistently urged the need for moderating these increases in present circumstances. Most authorities have cooperated in this, but some have not. The Government therefore referred this question to the Board and we are now taking powers to bring its proposals into effect. Clause 10 is concerned with rent increases after the Bill is passed and its broad effect is that local authorities will not be able to increase rents without Ministerial approval. Clause 11 gives power to require local authorities to reduce rent increases which take effect on or after 1st April, but before the passing of the Bill, and also in the case of those increases which have been referred to the Board.
Local authorities have already been circularised warning them that Ministers will not normally accept proposals for average increases in standard rents of more than 7s. 6d. a week in any one

year or increases for any individual house of more than 10s. a week. Already, Walsall Council is re-examining the increase of 15s. a week which it was proposing to bring into effect, while the G.L.C., whose proposed increases the Board criticised, has now submitted revised proposals to the Ministry for the coming year from next September. Under these, the average rent increase of 11s. 7d. a week has been dropped to 7s. 6d. and the highest individual increase from 22s. 6d. to 10s.—a welcome relief to about 225,000 tenants of the G.L.C., which the Minister has readily approved.
Clause 12 deals with a minor point which will, none the less, be welcomed, I am sure, on both sides of the House. It relieves local authorities of their present obligation to serve a notice to quit when notifying a tenant of a rent increase—something which has caused considerable distress and misunderstanding, particularly among elderly people.
Finally, but not least important, I come to dividends, which are dealt with in Part II of the Bill. It would clearly be intolerable if, at a time when everyone in the country is being asked to show restraint, we were not to call for equal restraint in company distributions to shareholders.
That is why the Chancellor announced in his Budget speech that the 3½ per cent. ceiling for increases would apply to dividends as much as to wages and salaries and that we would be taking statutory powers, but asked that firms should immediately start notifying their dividend recommendations for vetting by the Treasury. The response from industry has been very good and the policy has been operating voluntarily since 19th March on the lines of the published guidance already given by the Treasury.
The powers set out in Part II are, therefore, reserve powers, just as they are in the case of prices and pay, not to be used unless voluntary co-operation breaks down. But they are comparable in their effect to those proposed for incomes and prices.
The essential reserve power is in Clause 6, which would enable the Treasury, in the unlikely event of the need arising, to make Orders or directions requiring companies not to distribute higher ordinary dividends than


in a past year without obtaining consent. The Clause also spells out the various definitions which would be necessary to make this basic power workable. But I repeat that the wording of Part II of the Bill does not in itself alter the present voluntary scheme of dividend restraint.
Hon. Members may have noticed that there is no mention in the Bill of the ceiling itself—the famous 3½ per cent.— or of the criteria spelt out in the White Paper which set the framework for the whole policy. There is no sinister significance in this—no weakening on any aspect of the policy. In fact, the criteria are already operating. In accordance with normal practice, I have already used my power under Section 4 of the 1966 Act to make a General Considerations Order, as a result of which the latest White Paper —Command 3590—is the document which must now be taken into account by the Prices and Incomes Board in interpreting the policy.
Indeed, the whole case for the Bill and for these powers must be judged in the light of these criteria, for the policy that we are putting forward is as much a social policy as an economic one. Are we right to say that there is a vital interaction between prices, incomes and productivity? If so, is it not better, in a mature society, to plan that relationship in a constructive way instead of falling back on the brutal instruments of deflation or savage cuts in public expenditure which are the pet alternatives of hon. Gentlemen opposite?
And if we choose to plan, are we not right to give priority to those who are weakest in the bargaining market place, the lower paid—as we do in our criteria for pay increases; criteria incidentally which we agreed at the outset with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.? And are we not right to add to these criteria, as we do in the White Paper, the new and challenging one; the chance to raise our standard of living to the extent that we raise our productive efficiency? The keynote of the policy I am recommending to the House this afternoon is opportunity. The Government do not merely call on our people for endurance: they call for creative new attitudes of mind, and a positive, not a negative, approach to our problems.
An incomes policy is likely to mean little if it is not developed into a constructive and positive instrument of reform. It can be really effective only if it is accepted at the place of work by managers and trade union representatives as a policy which makes sense to them as negotiators. It must be based on consent if it is to be successful. This means that it cannot only be a policy of restraint and of holding back. This may work for a short time, but it will never capture the imagination of people in the long run.
Only a policy of reform will do that— and it is on reform that I intend to place emphasis. I want managers and trade union representatives to feel that this policy can help them to reform their wages structures, to improve their methods of bargaining and consultation, and so release our full potential of productivity. It is this which the White Paper sets out to achieve and it is on these aspects of our policy that my new Department will be concentrating.
I believe that the people are tired of the crises which have plagued us under successive Governments. They are tired of our economic weakness and the loss of our industrial lead. They are tired of our endless indebtedness to overseas creditors. They want this country to regain its economic independence, its freedom to expand, and to decide its own social policies. This is the independence which hon. Members opposite never achieved. This is the independence which we intend to achieve under this Government.

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected any of the four Amendments.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: Opportunity knocks, so we are told. The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State may be set on reform, but the British people are set on having a new Government.
We started listening with amazement to what the right hon. Lady had to say. We were taken into the heights of cloud-cuckoo land. Possibly the choicest remark was that devaluation was a conscious choice of policy. Surely the right hon. Lady has learned by now that that is a joke which will no longer wash. Then we had the excuse about all the miseries of the last two years being due to the terrible, uncompetitive, broken-down


economy which she and the Prime Minister had inherited. They did not say much about that in the 1966 election campaign. All was high promise then. The highest trade deficit since the last year of the previous Socialist Government occurred last year, 1967.
Then we had the balance of the right hon. Lady's speech. It is no good the right hon. Lady trying to fool her hon. Friends. All of us know that this is an incomes policy Bill. Hon. Members opposite showed by their reaction hardly unanimous and warm support for the small part of her speech which she devoted to incomes, and they showed by their cool silence during the major part of her speech dealing with prices, and so forth, that they do not believe that this policy will help their supporters very much.
Therefore, just as we opposed the Bills of 1966 and 1967, so we shall oppose this Bill. Of course, we agree that one of the most urgent national needs is to achieve a better balance between increases in national production and increases in national earnings. But we reject the method and the whole economic and political philosophy on which the Bill is passed.
We accept that an incomes policy has a part to play in our economic management. No Government in modern conditions can be indifferent to the movement of incomes in relation to production or refuse to try to influence that movement. The last Conservative Government had a policy on incomes. The next Conservative Government will have a policy on incomes.
What we reject is the altogether excessive weight which the Government have placed on incomes policy which they have not been able to bear over the last three years and which they will not be able to bear in future. What we also reject is the use of statutory control, of legal compulsion. We reject legal compulsion on the grounds both of practicability and principle. Two years ago, and again last year, we said that it would not work and it has not worked.
In its report in February of this year, for example, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research—certainly no instrument of Tory policy or

propaganda—came to the conclusion that over the whole period from just before the freeze incomes had risen by roughly the amount that had been expected as a result of natural forces, and that, if anything, the rises frequently had been higher during previous roughly comparable periods, periods, be it noted when there were no statutory powers.
There is no reason to suggest that statutory powers will work any more successfully in the future than they have in the past. On the contrary, all the signs point in the other direction, because the pressure for wage increases is growing faster than powers which are being taken to resist them. Moreover, the machinery for implementing this Bill is farcical.
Nothing can be done under the Bill until proposed pay or price increases have been notified and vetted; and as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told me in answer to a Written Question only on Monday last, the total staff in all Government Departments concerned with vetting tens or probably hundreds of thousands of notifications is only 90. The vast majority of pay and price increases, therefore, are bound to go by unvetted; and even the minority which are properly vetted cannot have any action taken upon them until they have first been sent to the Prices and Incomes Board.
Therefore, the percentage of proposed pay, price or charge increases which takes place in this country every year which can be bitten on by this policy is a fraction of 1 per cent. only, so the machinery is farcical and it will not work. But in so far as in this fraction of cases it does bite, the policy is likely to be arbitrary and unfair in the way it does so.
In particular, the responsible and unscrupulous will always find it easy to drive a coach and horses through these powers and regulations. So, of course, will many people in innocent ignorance as well, so that there will be a tendency for the Bill mainly to penalise those who both take the trouble to understand it and are the more responsible and conscientious members of our society; and that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is a very dangerous tendency to foster.
Moreover, quite apart from the farcical nature of its machinery, the policy is itself woefully lacking in clarity. The


Bill itself is a disgrace in this respect. I wonder how many ordinary people, trade union officials, managers, Members of Parliament or even Ministers for that matter, can read the Bill and understand what it is all about. But this is a Bill which, if it means anything at all, has to be clearly understandable to people on the factory floor. Speaking for myself—and I suspect not only for myself —it is virtually incomprehensible.
It is not only the Bill, it is the whole background of policy. Take the question of the norm. The Chancellor, in his Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund, referred categorically to a nil norm, but since the announcement of a 3½ per cent. ceiling Ministers have consistently refused to give a categorical answer to the question whether a nil norm is still the order of the day.
One has only to read, for example, the Observer of last Sunday, for example, or even parts of the reports of the Prices and Incomes Board to realise that there is a lack of clarity even among informed circles about what this policy really means. If that is so at that level imagine the lack of clarity at the factory floor level, which is the only place where it matters. Then, as we found, on 19th March in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, the Government have no idea about how this policy applies to piece-work systems or local wage drifts. A report just published by the Prices and Incomes Board underlines the extraordinary importance of this and the extraordinary lacuna, this procedure appearing to have been omitted altogether.
The Prices and Incomes Board pointed out, for example—on its estimate on wage drifts—that wage drift alone, in a year when output is rising and employment is high, may well be roughly the same as the average annual increase in productivity; yet there is nothing it can say that really gets to the bottom of wage drift in this policy. Again, the Prices and Incomes Board, in its report, found that payment-by-results earnings often do not arise from claims or settlements in the accepted sense, but from bargains struck in their thousands every day, nearly always by groups of fewer than 100 workers—the very people who are

not covered at all by the Bill. It is bound to fail in the future as it has failed in the past.
So we come to the damage the Bill does and, in particular, we come to the damage it does to the real principle of freedom. One of the hallmarks of freedom is surely the right of people to determine their own earnings without State intervention or direction, whether they do so by collective bargaining or by individual negotiation. I hear the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister muttering. I used to think, and I believe that most of his supporters in the House and in the country used to think, that the statement I have just made was one of the basic tenets of the Labour Party. Certainly, looking at the converse, one has only to look round the world during the last generation to realise that trade unions and employers' associations which have become agents of central government are a distinguishing feature of the authoritarian State.
Of course, we have not got to that point, and no one is suggesting we have, but perhaps we are moving more towards it than most people realise, let alone intend; because once started on this road of State intervention backed by legal compulsion it is very difficult to turn back.
In 1966, it was promised that statutory control was to last for one year only. The right hon. Lady was claiming great virtue for the continuance of it and all the wonderful things it would do for prices. She did not appear to wake up to it in 1966. It was so unimportant in 1966 that we were promised that without fail it would not last more than one year. In 1967, it was to be for one further year. Now it is to be for another one-and-a-half years, and but for the fierce resistance of many hon. Members opposite, the Government intended that the powers could then be continued year after year by almost automatic annual process. Have the Government really changed their mind, or is this just another trimming to the wind that blows?—because already, after less than two years of compulsory powers, we see the damage that has been done to responsible voluntary action in industry. Ill-will and conflict are arising where good will and peace existed before. The authority and influence of responsible trade union


leaders is being undermined and the confidence of less responsible ones increased. This kind of damage is easy and quick to do. It is a much longer and more difficult task to repair it once it has been done.

Mr. Heffer: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, under the policy which his party has put forward in its document "A Fair Deal at Work", the trade union movement would be so hog-tied that its democratic basis would be destroyed altogether?

Mr. Carr: I have never heard such nonsense in my life. Other countries have had and have legislation comparable with what is proposed in our policy document, and the unions in those other countries flourish on a democratic basis, growing in strength as a result of such policies. And so they will in Britain.
The damage which we are suffering— hon. Members opposite know that the damage is being done—has produced no practical benefit even in the short run. Anyone looking at the Bill dispassionately must accept that it creates a panoply of power and a superstructure of fussy inquisition which are out of all proportion to the very small results likely to be achieved by it. Yet these same features are peculiarly well designed to damage responsible voluntary action by both sides of industry.
The most serious danger in the long run is that compulsion feeds on itself, so that as in each successive year we have a Prices and Incomes Bill, the Government have to take stronger powers than the year before, covering a wider field in order to try to produce the same minimal effect. Last year, the delaying power had to be extended to seven months. This year, it has to go up to 12 months. This year, orders made by wages councils and the Agricultural Wages Board have to be brought within the field of control. This year, also, the Government feel impelled to take new powers to control prices, rents and dividends.
Thus, the powers relentlessly extend themselves until legislation to implement a prices and incomes policy becomes legislation to control the whole economy. Last year, we warned that the policy was unstable and that the Government would this year either have to go to more com-

pulsion or return to greater freedom. Predictably, they have chosen more compulsion. And so it will go on until they are turned out.
We cannot help recalling the reasoned Amendment which we moved against the original Prices and Incomes Bill in 1966. It ended by declining to give a Second Reading to a Bill
which introduces a Measure of compulsion that will inevitably lead to State control of prices, wages, dividends, and to direction of labour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1966; Vol. 731, c. 1761.]
Within two years, we have the lot except the last, direction of labour.
The right hon. Lady has often made clear that she believes in the planning of incomes not just as a short-term expedient, not just as a necessary evil in time of emergency, but as a long-term good and an essential part of Socialism. She has made clear also, since taking her present office, that she believes in the planning of manpower. Indeed, in the long term how can one plan incomes without planning employment? But if the planning of incomes requires to be backed by statutory control, is it not more than likely that in the end it will be discovered that the planning of manpower also requires some form of legal sanction to make it effective? I ask the House to contemplate that state of affairs seriously. Of course, it is not here yet. Of course, the right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friends do not wish it to happen. But it is a dangerous path on which we are embarked.
This dangerous chain reaction of compulsion feeding on compulsion must be broken. It can be broken. We in the Opposition have frequently spelled out the alternative to the Government's present policy. The last occasion on which we did so was in the Budget debate on 21st March. Following that debate, the Sunday Times, in its editorial of 24th March, complained that what I had put forward was not an alternative incomes policy, but was a complete economic programme. Of course it was. That is the whole point.
The only salvation for this country lies in adopting policies deliberately designed to encourage a high-earnings, high-profitability, high-productivity, low-cost economy. Only in that way shall we have an economy sufficiently enterprising


and competitive to allow for stable growth. The policy in the Bill, however, is the enemy of such a development, and that is why we oppose it utterly.
On 5th July, 1966, when reluctantly supporting the Prices and Incomes Bill of that year as a necessary and temporary evil, The Times said:
It should never be forgotten that the Bill is needed simply because of the failure of the Government economic policy. … In the long run these inflationary forces can be controlled by the statutory control of incomes, or regulations in other fields, only at the cost of putting the economy in a strait-jacket which itself is the greatest deterrent to a fast and stable rate of growth.
That still remains true. If there be a need for the present Bill, it arises still because, and only because, of the failure of the Government's economic policy. Change the economic policy, and we could scrap the Bill. We could then bring the economy out of the straitjacket which is the greatest deterrent to fast and stable growth. But the straitjacket will by this Bill remain an even greater deterrent to that growth than when The Times wrote its editorial two years ago. The statutory controls and regulations have become greater and more pervasive, and they are being made more so by the Bill.
The additional powers under the Bill regarding prices, rents and dividends as well as incomes will all increase the deterrents to economic growth. Let us consider the new powers on prices. These display the Government at their glorious best, playing their favourite game of facing two ways at once. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sets out to please the international bankers by saying that he will put prices up. The First Secretary of State tries to please her hon. Friends on the benches behind her and the trade unions outside the House by saying that she will be extremely active and interventionist in bringing unnecessary price increases down. Who is deceiving whom? For the moment, at least, it is only the Chancellor's policies which pack any punch. The First Secretary of State's activities are largely a propaganda exercise—all my eye and Betty Martin—and for "Betty Martin" read "publicity for Barbara Castle".
The one effective way of preventing unnecessary price increases is by competition. Let us have more of it.

Attempts to reduce prices by administrative intervention are almost certain to disillusion consumers because of their almost total ineffectiveness, and, in so far as they do succeed, by reducing profits they will reduce investment and they will make it more difficult for the enterprising to get ahead of the field.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, by his action in abolishing resale price maintenance, did more to prevent unnecessary price increases and, at the same time, to increase efficiency than the right hon. Lady will achieve in 20 years of fussy interventionism and high-street snooping.
Let us consider the Government's actions on rents. These are both hypocritical and economically and socially damaging. They appear popular when first uttered, but they are hypocritical, because by far the largest cause of increases in cost and, therefore, the need for higher rents is the direct result of Government action. Any hon. Members with experience of local government will say that at least half the extra charges or higher costs come from high interest rates on the moneys which local authorities have to borrow. On top of that there is the S.E.T. and all the other extra taxation.
The Government's actions on rents can have only one of three effects, or perhaps a mixture of all three together. Either they will force councils to put up rates, or they will force councils to decrease the size of the rent rebates they provide for those tenants in the greatest need, or they will force councils to reduce their building programmes. One or a mixture of all three effects must inevitably flow from the Government's action on rents, and what sense does that make in terms either of social justice or economic policy?
Moreover, by interfering with the independent statutory duties of local authorities the Government are exhibiting another sign of their mania for centralisation. Remember, it was only a week or two ago that all these local authorities sought and obtained an overwhelming vote of confidence from their electorates, and the biggest ever condemnation of central Government policies.
The new proposed powers on dividends are also economically damaging in their


effect. We must grow up and talk sense about this and not fool the people as the right hon. Lady is trying to do. If we really want to encourage the growth in Britain of a high earning, low-cost, high productivity economy, we must encourage high profits and dividends, as long as we make sure—and this is the vital proviso—that these are earned in a fiercely competitive market. To do otherwise will be to reduce productive investment and to slow down the growth of new and enterprising businesses. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said two years ago, it will encourage the survival of the fattest, rather than the fittest. Moreover, it will create a situation ripe for the sort of takeover spree which hon. Gentlemen opposite will be the first to condemn.
We come back, inevitably, to the fact that the only, and also absolutely necessary, alternative is a complete economic programme of the kind that we have spelled out over and over again, an economic programme radically different from the policies of this Government. Let me repeat in shorthand form the headings of some of the basic actions which are required.
First, get Government expenditure under control. Secondly, cut back the last three years' overgrowth of bureaucracy. Thirdly, give special new incentives to saving by introducing some form of contractural scheme for "save as you earn". Fourthly, reduce direct taxation on both individuals and companies, Fifthly, sharpen competition by every means available, including, where necessary, the reduction of tariffs. Sixthly, reform the structure and method of government so that the Government set an example in their various rôles as policy maker, administrator, and the country's largest buyer of goods and services. Seventhly, give Britain, for the first time, a comprehensive system of industrial relations law comparable to the systems already existing in every other major industrial country, under which the trade unions flourish and the people benefit.
Within that radically different economic context an incomes policy without statutory powers would have a minor but none the less significant rôle to play. How would it be operated? The Prices and Incomes Board would be given a

new start by being reconstituted as a productivity board. Such a board would be used much more sparingly and selectively, and it would operate entirely by a process of inquiry and report; seeking to influence the parties before they reach their settlements, rather than upsetting them afterwards; providing the parties with better information and so helping to lubricate the workings of a market economy; mobilising and educating opinion; above all, as a result of becoming the focus for collecting and transmitting information of successful practice, making itself an increasingly important agency for encouraging the development of productivity bargaining and efficient systems of payment by results.
Above and beyond the rôle of the productivity board, and more important, the Government must set an example in relation to their own employees, not an example of meanness, but an example of efficiency; paying the proper market rate for the sort of staff they require; striving the whole time to pay better, but keeping the total salary bill in check by requiring fewer people; being an innovator in the development of more efficient salary structures and better methods of relating pay to work and responsibility; and using their influence as their banker to make sure that nationalised industries and local authorities do likewise.
To all those who have come to believe in the essential need for a stautory incomes policy as a centre-piece of economic policy we say, look at the facts, because we genuinely do not believe that the facts have ever been properly looked at by the Government.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: Mr. Woodrow Wyatt (Bosworth)rose—

Mr. Carr: I cannot give way because of the shortage of time.
Hitherto, the Government have simply asserted—

Mr. Wyatt: Mr. Wyatt rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Carr: I should like to give way, but there is a shortage of time and other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
Hitherto, the Government have simply asserted as a "given" truth that an


incomes policy has a vital and leading rôle to play, rather than a minor and supporting one. Yet before embarking on the frustrating and dangerous path of a statutory incomes policy, which some hon. Gentlemen opposite support, and making it a central plank of economic management, surely at least three basic questions should have been answered. First, has the behaviour of prices and wages in the United Kingdom been the root cause of our economic malaise? Secondly, what are the real benefits which a successful policy of this kind would bring if all went well? Thirdly, what chance is there of a successful policy, compatible with democracy?
Last year —[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] So far, I have spoken for 10 minutes less than the Minister did, and my speech will be shorter than hers. [An HON. MEMBER:" It still seems long."] Perhaps because it is more solid. Perhaps, in the end, policies matter more than a public relations exercise.
Last year the United Nations published a report prepared by its Secretariat of the Economic Commission for Europe. It showed that over the last decade Britain came ninth out of 11 major industrial countries in the international league table for increases in wage earnings. Only Switzerland and the United States had lower increases in earnings than Britain. The same report gave comparative prices for domestic expenditure from 1958-1964. It showed that Britain came twelfth out of 14. Only Belgium and the United States had lower price increases over that period.
The strikingly different thing about the British economy in all international comparisons is not that domestic wages and prices have risen faster than in other countries, but that output and productivity have risen less rapidly. There is, therefore, a prim a facie case for believing that rather than to incomes policy we ought to look elsewhere in the structure of our economy for the explanation and the cure of our economic malaise.
Once more, we are driven back to the inescapable conclusion that Britain's over-riding need is for a new and radically different economic policy, because even if we had a complete statutory freeze on incomes and prices—something which nobody wants or believes desirable, and nobody proposes—it can be worked out

that that would be the equivalent of about a 5 per cent. further devaluation in its effect on the export-import balance. This, in the first year at least, would only improve the balance of payments by a few tens of millions of pounds. Such a complete freeze would need to go on several years before the effect got at all large.
Let us suppose—to be less unrealistic— that the Government's present policy is successful in holding down rises in prices to 1 per cent. less than they would otherwise have risen. Even that is a highly optimistic supposition. It would take a decade before really substantial benefits accrued to the balance of payments. Incomes policy cannot bring substantial short-term benefits to the balance of payments. In other words, one is driven to the conclusion that, if incomes policy is to play a central rôle as the saviour of our balance of payments, two conditions are essential.
First, it has got to be far more effective than it has been hitherto, which means almost certainly that powers of compulsion would have to be far greater than hitherto or now contemplated. Secondly, the policy has to be permanent and not temporary, which is contrary to all the Government's assertions. Thus, the Government's statutory incomes policy is seen to be a false god at whose feet we shall worship and, alas, sacrifice in vain. That brings me to the whole economic and political philosophy on which the Bill is based.
In advocating the policy desperately to the Parliamentary Labour Party last week, the Prime Minister is reported to have said:
A Government which for any reason is forced to administer policies in which it does not believe … ceases to be a Government.
At another meeting two days later, he said:
Denied its prices and incomes policies, no Government pledged to full employment could govern.
Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that? If he does, why did he say in Television Election Forum on 10th March, 1966:
I don't think you can ever legislate for wage increases and no party is setting out to do that … Once you have that law of prescribing wages, I think you are on a very slippery slope.


That is what the right hon. Gentleman believed in 1966. Three months later, of course, he forgot those words.
In October, 1967, he returned to the television screen on the B.B.C's programme "Twenty-Four Hours", and specifically said that when the 1966 Act came to an end there would be no continuation of legislative powers. Yet we had the 1967 Act and now we have the 1968 Bill, which apparently the Prime Minister says no Government can govern without and still believe in full employment. How the tune has changed. In one year, the Prime Minister puts his hand on his left-side heart and swears to the Labour Party and the country that he believes one thing; two years later he puts his hand on his right-side heart and swears that he believes the opposite.
So this Bill brings into focus the underlying choice which Britain has to make. All that is wrong in Britain today is that we lack the necessary driving force, without which our economy and society cannot flourish. Basically, we have to choose between two kinds of driving force. The first is the driving force of a market economy propelled by incentives and competition and placing its emphasis on private initiative and responsibility. The alternative is the engine of State direction. Both can be successful in their different ways. We can look to the United States for one and to Russia for the other. But to be successful one must depend predominantly on one or the other.
The basic trouble under a Labour Government is that Britain has neither course, because British Socialist Governments distrust the market economy, initiative and free enterprise and shackle and choke the market economy to the point where it becomes ineffective. On the other hand, to their credit, they try to draw back from the full force of State directions. So we get the worst of both systems in lack of any driving force.
A Labour Government meddle, but they do not really manage. The meddle leads to muddle. The muddle leads to half-hearted compulsion. The halfhearted compulsion leads to more meddling, to more muddle and then to somewhat stronger compulsion. And so the wheel spins—meddle, muddle, com-

pulsion—the repetitive cycle of Labour Government with the compulsion getting stronger every time we come round.
If Britain is to prosper we must make a clear and sharper choice. We must either have much more freedom or we must choose much more positive compulsion. We are convinced that the people will never tolerate the degree of compulsion required to make the Socialist planned economy work. For that reason, we base our policies on freedom, incentive and competition, and that is why we reject this Bill. We are sure that we are right and that we shall be upheld by the electorate.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: No doubt hon. Members will pick out various parts of the speech of the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) for comment. I have but one comment to make about it. First, he said that we must have a different economic policy. Later he said that if we changed the economic policy we could scrap the Bill. Later still, he defined his changed economic policy as one of high profits and high distributions in the fiercest competitive society. I ask the House, and my right hon. and hon. Friends in particular, to remember who would be the victims of such a society.
I lived and worked for a long time while that doctrine dominated our society. [Interruption.] I hope that we now have that jibe over. It comes well from the mouth of the hon. Gentleman, so let us have it out. I happened to live for a long time in the sort of society described by the right hon. Gentleman. Industry did not become efficient. We did not stand up to international competition. All that happened was that many people were out of work and those who were in work were poorly paid and overworked. If the right hon. Gentleman is seriously putting forward such an economic structure, then he is giving a recipe for going back whence we came—and that is a place which we would prefer to forget.
I have mixed feelings about taking part in the debate. First I have the feeling that this is where I came in.

Mr. Michael Foot: And where my right hon. Friend went out.

Mr. Brown: I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend the Member for


Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) would not grab my punch-lines.
It feels a little as though I were making a maiden speech. I do not propose to re-run all the old causes or fight again all my old battles. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I think that this is an issue of critical importance to the economic survival of this country, no matter what economic policies Ministers of either side think they are running.
I still believe that the Declaration of Intent on Productivity, Prices and Incomes is valid and tremendously important. Let me remind the House that it was signed by everyone who had responsibility in industry, trade and commerce. They include the Chambers of Commerce, the British Employers' Federation, the F.B.I., the National Association of British Manufacturers— as these then were—the T.U.C. and the Government. That declaration set out what they thought it was important to do and what action each of them should take to bring about the aim. It established their view that unless we do these things we shall have a slower rate of growth and a lower level of employment.
We know that the Conservative Party never accepted it, although the right hon. Member for Mitcham, in an ambiguous part of his speech, said, "We accept an incomes policy"—but it remains true that every other area of British industry, commerce and trade has remained with that declaration. I believe that it continues to have validity, and that is why none of them has renounced it.
The increased benefits which we say we want our people to have and the social wage which my hon. Friends want them to have can come only from increased productivity. The real purpose of my remarks today, which I promise to keep brief, is to point out that increased productivity requires this policy as one of its elements. We all know that it will not come only through that, but it does require it as an element of it.
When I hear the right hon. Member for Mitcham and other hon. Gentlemen opposite demanding that one of the ways out of this difficulty is just to cut Government spending—last week-end it was suggested that the Government made too much of a demand on our production— I wonder, since hon. Gentlemen opposite

want more aircraft carriers than we are providing, since they would return to east of Suez, from which we are coming out, and since they would pick up so many of our defence commitments which we are dropping, from where the cut in Government spending would come. Naturally it could come only in housing, schools and hospitals. [Interruption.] When hon. Gentlemen opposite were wearing a different hat at the hustings they were saying that they would do more for those sectors than we are doing. Let us at least talk in honest terms to each other.
When we talk about increased earnings coming from increased productivity, let us note that that means the total of all increases in earnings. Many of our people cannot make independent productivity bargains, although they, too, will want a share in the rises. They are not willing to see those who can push their earnings up from £25 to £30 while those who are on £13 stay on £13. They will want a share, too. Thus, productivity bargains, where they can be properly made, must, in effect, be shared at least three ways: one way to those who contribute to them, one way to management, which also contributes by putting in vastly more expensive equipment, and one way which takes care of the consumer—the social wage which we in this country pay for mostly centrally and not by a direct charge on the factories—and which also takes care of those who cannot themselves get a productivity bargain and a rise that way.
We must somehow—and I say this particularly to my right hon. and hon. Friends who may not agree with me about this—get this across to the trade unionists, workers, and not least to those who claim to lead the trade unions. This has not been happening.

Mr. James Hamilton: Mr. James Hamilton (Bothwell)rose—

Mr. Brown: I will not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] If the House particularly wants me to give way I will, but since about 40 hon. Members wish to speak I would rather continue, and hon. Members who follow me and who disagree with me can make their views known.
As I was saying, this has not been happening. If I am asked why, I would


say that for the most part the reason is because our trade unionists and employers, for all their protestations, in the document to which I referred and elsewhere, simply have not been willing to carry it out when it came to doing the job. But it could happen and I hope that the House will forgive me for sounding perhaps a little arrogant when I say that my reading, as it were, of people as I have gone about the country is that they would be willing for it to happen this way if they got the leadership for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] When I say "leadership"—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be silly—I am talking about leadership in the C.B.I. and the unions. From the failure to get it to happen has come much of our economic difficulty in the last few years and much of the reason for our inflation.
Can we get rid of one nonsense—the myth that there has been a wage freeze and a runaway prices rise? It just jolly well is not so and all the figures are the other way round. Whatever success we had in holding incomes down, that was for a very short period indeed. Whatever success we have had in holding prices down, that has been for a very long time indeed, and this has increased the inflationary pressure inside the country.
I wish to address a few remarks mostly to my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench and to refer to what I regard as the very dangerous nonsense to which I give the generic name "Powell-ism". I ask my hon. Friends who may have doubts about what to do tonight to recognise that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who is not in his place today—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is."] I beg his pardon. Like me, the right hon. Gentleman sits in a rather unfamiliar seat these days. The right hon. Gentleman follows out to its logical conclusion the argument which so many of my hon. Friends use. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] This may be disagreeable to my hon. Friends, but I must point out to them—

Mr. Stanley Orme: Withdraw that statement.

Mr. Brown: I believe that the logical consequence of what they are arguing is what the right hon. Gentleman says. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Do not class him with hon. Members on this side of the House.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Brown: The logical consequence of what the right hon. Gentleman says and what some of my hon. Friends say is that there will be a free-for-all.

Mr. Orme: Rubbish.

Mr. Brown: Unless my hon. Friends are ready to accept some orderly planning in this area, there will be a free-for-all and the victims of that will be most of our people and the gainers will be most of their people.
This is not a speech with which I am trying to seek popularity. I think it needs to be said, as I thought it needed to be said in 1964 and again in 1966, and it needs to be said to my hon. and right hon. Friends. This view did not begin with the 1964 Labour Government, much less with me. In a debate of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale reminded me just now about two or three o'clock in the morning, when the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union was still with us, I referred to a book, which is in the Library now, called "The Clydesiders". At least one of them is present with us today. That book includes a memorandum written by John Wheatley very many years ago which could have been the prototype, the draft, from which the present prices and incomes policy was taken.
The inevitable conclusion I draw from all this is that a planned policy is inescapable, is inevitable, despite all the difficulties of getting it through, if we are to avoid chaotic inflation and glaring injustice. Now I come to part of the difficulty. We are all conscious of the chicken and egg argument: where does the cycle begin, with the chicken or the egg? We have that problem here. If a prices and incomes policy is essential for expansion, equally an expansion policy is essential for a prices and incomes policy. Otherwise, the climate for it simply does not exist. Much of our difficulties over the years since 1964 have been due to the successive doses of deflation and the departure from the expansion programme set out in the National Plan of 1965.
In my new-found position of giving the Government the utmost support with the utmost reservation, I warn Ministers seriously that even the most dedicated of us will find it very difficult to get support for this policy if at the same time Ministers talk, as I heard a very senior Minister talk the other day, about our standard of living falling. It may sound courageous, it may sound realistic in our own ears, but it just is not understood outside and it cannot be true of everybody. My standard of living could fall without my feeling any great harm. That of many hon. Members opposite could fall even further without their feeling any harm at all. But there are many people outside, whose support for this policy is essential, whose standard of living simply cannot fall.
It is no use talking in these general terms. The only effect, if we talk to people like this, is to stimulate them to fight for themselves, to try to insulate themselves from this. I believe that sort of talk is also fatal for the drive for increased productivity. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) who said the other day that nobody in his right mind will work hard if the consequences of working hard, he thinks—never mind whether he is right or wrong—will do him out of a job and put his mate out of a job. If we talk in these terms we not only do not have a climate for a prices and incomes policy which otherwise people might accept, but we do not even have a climate for accepting the new methods which will lead to increased productivity.
Increased productivity, as the Minister said today, is itself an absolutely essential requirement for the expansion we need to pay for all the rest, and the whole wretched circle is completed once again. I believe that the Government—here I speak from experience—and their advisers, all of them, must accept that this is so and must change their attitude. The traditional Treasury views on this and related subjects must be overborne. Otherwise, far from breaking out, we shall remain in the same straitjacket. I failed in my time; I wish the present Minister success in hers. I hope she will succeed. Because I believe, and remain an ardent believer, in the need for the earliest increase in total economic activity and greater productivity, I accept the

need for this Bill, but I insist to the Government that all these things must go together. Acceptance of the Bill must be taken to mean on their side acceptance of the other parts of what essentially is a package deal.
On the question, why do we need the Bill, all this business about penal powers and all that, no one could pretend that we were getting results commensurate with our needs up to now under the existing machinery. A fresh drive has to be made. All experience suggests that the voluntary machinery needs legal backing and reinforcement if it is to work even partially effectively. I do not believe that the voluntary machinery will ever work wholly effectively. People talk about it breaking down in Sweden and collapsing in Holland, but the point is that there after 20 years they still regard the situation as better than if they did not have it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, do they?"] A partially successful working of the machinery is held by everybody in Sweden and Holland to be better than no machinery at all.
I have not changed my view that in the end a successful prices and incomes policy will operate, and operate only on an agreed voluntary basis. But as the situation is at the moment—let us face it—the voluntary basis between the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. is not yet strong enough to do the job all by itself. I believe also that—this is something which was attacked by the right hon. Gentleman, it is a difference of view but I declare my view—for this policy to work requires a much greater degree and much greater development of centralisation of authority in the Trades Union Congress and in the C.B.I. This is not yet accepted in either, but I believe that one day it will be. It has to come and until it has come we shall not get the degree of success needed for this voluntary policy.
That leads me to the conclusion that something like this Bill is needed in the meantime. I understand those who are so traditional that they think individual trade unions should never surrender authority to the General Council of the T.U.C. They of course are in a straight line with those who, before there was a T.U.C, would not even agree to setting one up, for the very same reasons. I understand it. I happen to think it is a little neolithic, but I understand it. What


I do not understand is that those who believe in this development should go on claiming to see this Bill as an obstacle to it happening. Oddly enough, I think this Bill is one of the ways to encourage it to happen. Much less do I understand those who claim to accept the policy and then oppose this development.
All that I have said up to now is consistent with what I said in 1964 and in the debates on the 1966 Act, which I have re-read—the exciting but rather wearisome debates throughout those days and nights. But I have changed my view in one respect, which leads me greatly to regret the Government's decision to drop the 18 months and the continuation provisions from the Bill. I recognise that this will not endear me to some of those I am trying to persuade. Nevertheless, I should say it.

Mr. Heffer: You have got that right, George.

Mr. Brown: Much as I like my hon. Friend, he was never among those that I really thought I was trying to persuade.

Mr. Heffer: You have got that right, too.

Mr. Brown: As a result of experience over these years I have come to the conclusion—and my ex-colleagues in the Government know that this is no new statement; they have heard it before, but this is the first time I have said it in public—that this policy, which I regard as essential, will need those kind of backstop provisions for quite a long time ahead. I also believe that it is damaging and disturbing industrially and economically to have this performance every year or every other year. I also believe that it is destructive of our credibility abroad. Who can seriously believe that we shall go through this again in 1969 or 1970?

An Hon. Member: And we will.

Sir G. Nabarro: You will not be there. You will be out.

Mr. Brown: Who can believe that the need will be any less in those years than it is now if we are to go on maintaining even the 3 8 per cent. expansion rate set out in the National Plan, let alone the 6 per cent. which other people talk about?

Is it too late to ask for reconsideration of this?
I doubt whether the opposition to the Bill has been affected in the slightest one way or the other by this so-called placatory move. But I believe—I may be quite wrong about this—that our economic strategy in the two or three years ahead could well be damaged by it.
Finally, a word to my hon. Friends who opposed the 1966 Act so strongly and are equally opposed to the present Bill. When I re-read the debates on that Act, it seemed to me that there were really three arguments, and I suspect from what I have read of what people have written or spoken that they are the three major arguments now. The first is that the policy has not worked fairly or sufficiently effectively to be worth reinforcing; the second that the reinforcing provisions could never be used anyway; and the third that we could not afford to have them on the Statute Book for fear that we might have another Government who would use them against our people. Those arguments run through all the debates I hear today, just as they did in 1966.
Apart from the contradictory nature of the arguments, may I repeat something of what I said in past days. If it is true that the policy has not worked fairly or sufficiently effectively, it is a condemnation not of the policy but of the failure of those in industry on all sides who endorsed it and committed themselves to it to make it work fairly by themselves. If that is true, we must lead on to an argument for a Bill of this kind.
Second, from the point of view of lower-paid workers and those who, by the very nature of their work, have less industrial strength and less opportunity for productive bargaining, the need for something like the Bill is made much greater by the failure than made less.
Third, and equally important, if we are to end the period of economic stagnation the need for something like the Bill is made much greater and not less by the failure of those outside to give what they committed themselves to giving.
That the so-called penal powers may never be used is the obvious and natural desire. Almost certainly, that will turn out to be so. But their existence can


be both an encouragement to better voluntary action and a deterrent to non-co-operation or active sabotage of what others are doing. There is no trade unionist in the House and there is no trade union official in the House who does not know that some are banking on being able to say, "We got through because we were militant. The others did not because they were co-operative." We all know that that is done, and can name the unions who can do it. I speak as a sponsored trade union candidate for the House and as an official of my union. We are all grown up and we all know what happens. There is no point in trying to pretend that it does not.
On the point about other and less trustworthy Governments coming in and taking over the powers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—well, the Conservative Party is about the one which one could be sure would be less trustworthy than almost any other. There is too much history there. Hon. Members might even like to read some Winston Churchill on the subject.
The obvious retort to those who say this is that the remedy is to see that they are not elected. I remind my hon. Friends that nowadays trade unionists are numerous enough always to ensure that the Conservatives are not elected if they do not want them. Apart from that, I think the answer is that Britain's national economic, industrial and social requirements will remain over the years ahead and they, rather than this kind of political argument, should be our major concern. I believe that these requirements—I can speak only for myself—demand that the policy should work. I accept that the Bill, or something like it, is now, and in the foreseeable future, required for this purpose.
I do not think that it is an acceptable or adequate answer to say that this group or that group will not have the Bill and therefore we must, in the interests of unity, refuse to carry it. That would be a very spurious unity based on a very cowardly performance. I have known those now urging it on Her Majesty's present Ministers to have rejected it out of hand when they were themselves Ministers carrying forward policies that were unpopular in our movement.
Nor can I accept the argument that trade unionists have never and will never accept the introduction of legal provisions into our collective bargaining. The right hon. Gentleman said that, but it really is not true. Whenever we have been in difficulties, as we have at various times in our collective bargaining history right up to recent times, one of the first things we have done is to get ourselves political power in order to bring legal provisions into our collective bargaining. It is not true; but, if it were, I say to those who use this argument that we simply cannot advocate change all round us and reserve decay for ourselves.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join in putting this Bill through and to join, even more importantly, in a fresh attempt really to persuade our friends outside of the value of, and the inescapable need for, the whole concept of a productivity, prices and incomes policy as endorsed by all the parties to the original Declaration of Intent. Those in the trade union movement who oppose this, in my view, are not speaking with the voice of twentieth century democratic trade unionism. Theirs, like the right hon. Gentleman's, is the voice of nineteenth century laissez-faire capitalism.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Keith Speed: To win a by-election is a wonderful, memorable and satisfying experience, but my elation on winning the Meriden by-election has been very much tempered by the sad circumstances which brought it about, as I did not have the pleasure of meeting the late Christopher Rowland. During the short time that he was in the House I know that he made a significant contribution to its work. He was an extremely popular, conscientious and hard-working constituency Member of Parliament who was liked and respected by all shades of political opinion in Meriden. In the level of service to his constituents he set a very high standard that I will find difficult to live up to. His sudden death at any early age is both a Parliamentary and a personal tragedy.
Meriden is a microcosm of the nation. If one fed into a computer all the national occupations, national incomes and social groupings in order to find a truly representative English constituency, the answer would be Meriden. It has thousands of


car workers, miners, commuters, businessmen, housewives, farmers and all the rest; there is the beautiful countryside; there are some of the biggest power plants in the country; and there are massive overspill schemes for Coventry and Birmingham. Indeed, the centre of England is in the Meriden constituency.
Midlanders are a shrewd, hard-headed bunch of people—I am a Midlander— and they are looking with more than usual interest at this Bill. I hope to keep my remarks temperate and non-controversial, although it may be difficult from time to time. If I stray into the realms of controversy, I hope that the House will forgive me.
The first test in legislation seeking to cure or solve a problem seems to be to analyse the problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) referred to this in his speech. We have had a lot of argument, but very little analysis. Taking the last 10 years, the average annual industrial earnings in this country have risen considerably slower than all our main trading competitors, with the exception of Canada, the United States and Switzerland. We find that our annual rise in prices is broadly the same as our main trading competitors, but our annual increase in industrial production over those 10 years has been rising only half as fast as theirs.
In terms of take-home pay and fringe benefits, the British worker today is pretty low down the European league. This downward trend is accelerating fast. The Bill can only accelerate the acceleration even more. At the same time, industrial production—the other side of the equation —will get little boost from a negative policy of control and restrictions and lower living standards, which is a concomitant of the Bill. On the face of it, it would seem that earnings are not the main problem.
In the short term, no evidence that I have seen suggests that controls of this kind have anything but a marginal effect on our balance of payments. I suppose there could be beneficial psychological effects on our overseas bankers, but these benefits are outweighed, by the inevitable souring of industrial relations and the ossification of industry and management. When one lumps together the go-ahead

and the inefficient in legislation of this kind the lowest common factor emerges.
Perhaps I might strike a topical note here. It seems that there is a direct correlation between the renaissance of English football, the World Cup, the European championships and all the rest. This renaissance was begun when the artificial controls on footballers' earnings and bonuses was lifted. They were given incentives, and we found footballers paying surtax. From that date to this England has led the world in football.
In the long run, the strict control of incomes could have a beneficial effect on our balance of payments, as was hinted at by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown). But the long run is nearer five to ten years. I believe that the cost in stifling business, individual enterprise and initiative and the abandonment of democracy, industrial and political as we know it, is too high a price to pay. I do not see any future in this country being the under-developed country of Europe with a low-wage, low-cost, low-investment economy. That, again, would be the result of a five to 10-year policy of strict controls.
If that is so, surely, when we are talking in terms of five to 10 years, it is better to deal with the restructuring and the essential problems in the economy. After all, if an engineer works with a workshop manual which is 60 years out of date, he is probably a very bad engineer and will soon go broke. The legal framework of industrial relations, the structure of our industrial wages system, and all too often the processes by which management decisions are taken, are relics of this bygone age. This means that if restructuring is to work these things must be tackled.
At the same time, there must be a vast increase in management retraining and in industrial retraining. If industrial over-manning is to become a thing of the past, earnings, investments, and the dividends from those investments, must be free to reflect the efficiency and the growth of the industries concerned. If we want a low-cost high-wage economy both industry and Government should have as their aim a five-year write-off in capital equipment as is done in many


other countries. If we want greater machine utilisation—and this is an essential part of increasing productivity—this means more three- or four-shift working. Indeed, if one is talking in terms of employment taxes as being desirable— and I have my doubts about this—this seems to be a more promising sphere for action than an arbitrary division between manufacturing and services.
When one is talking about more three or four-shift working, we, as Parliament, should be examining the social implications of such a policy. The opening hours of "pubs", shops, entertainment and transport are things which should be more seriously considered. It is not just a question of money; it is a question of virtually going into purdah when one starts work on a three- or four-shift system.
At the same time, industry needs to get a much better market-oriented approach rather than a production oriented approach. By that I mean make what the market wants rather than make what the factory thinks it desirable to make. Recent industrial mergers lead me to be slightly optimistic that this has at last got through to certain sections of British industry.
If the long-term problems are best solved by that restructuring, as I think they are, what should happen in the short term. First, the Government must act as any housewife acts—that is, to live within their means. I would even go further than perhaps a lot of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are prepared to go. In present circumstances, for every proposed extra £ of expenditure there should be a proposed £ reduction in existing expenditure.
This would at least be a wonderful discipline for thought, if nothing else. However desirable projects may be, whether loans or grants to industry, private or nationalised, whether buying American aircraft which do not fly, increasing employment, building more roads or anything else, all these desirable things should be debated, but at the end of the day the case should be argued and equal increases in expenditure savings made.
If this were done in present circumstances, then, as economic growth is resumed, social advance can be resumed

and this can be soundly based. If such a policy were carried out, the increase in prices caused by increases in direct taxation could be largely mitigated. Let no one doubt that increases in indirect taxation, particularly the recent ones in the Budget, can cause real social misery to many people living just above the social security margin.
A man who must use his car to go to work faces an extra bill of 8s. for his motoring—there are many of them in a rural and overspill constituency like Meriden—and also finds that his wages are frozen and housekeeping is tight; he has to face frustration and despair and possibly even cut his wife's housekeeping so that he can go to work. People who dismiss this and imagine that this increase in indirect taxation will have only marginal effects are underestimating the deep concern of many people, particularly the lower-paid workers.
At the same time, many people consider that our social security system is now giving many benefits to prop people who are shiftless and work-shy, while people who desperately need help are not getting it, and thus the increase in taxation, particularly indirect taxation on the lower-paid workers, is becoming an intolerable burden.
My final objection to the Bill is that it places increasing reliance on the Prices and Incomes Board. I do not wish to make any personal criticism of Mr. Aubrey Jones or his hundreds of colleagues working for the Board, who, in their terms of reference, are doing a good job, but we should query the terms of reference. There is now a pethora of economic planning boards, councils and Standing Committees, discussing this and that, and above them all is the National Board for Prices and Incomes. All these bodies have real and growing powers with influence over the lives of everyone.
While to feed them with information is taking up more and more of the valuable time of industrialists and trade unionists who would be better employed, in the national interest, in running their own affairs, there faceless "supercrats" are answerable to no one. They take on themselves decisions which are properly the function of Parliament, local authorities, management and the trade unions.


Even if they have a monopoly of wisdom, which I doubt, this is not democracy— certainly not as I understand it.
I apologise to the House if I have strained the indulgence which is customary on this occasion—

Mr. Orme: Make the most of it.

Mr. Speed: Thank you, I will.
I find the Bill detestable because it does not recognise the problems. It provides no short-term solution and the long-term solution, as in the Bill, is at a price which the nation would regret. In addition, it shelves more and more responsibilities upon outside, non-elected bodies which should not carry them. The Bill's psychology is wrong because it confuses masochism with modernisation. I hope that the House will decline to give it a Second Reading.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Although my hackles have been raised in consequence of having been forced to listen to some previous speeches, I have sufficient respect for the traditions of this honourable Assembly to offer sincere congratulations to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed). He made a somewhat contentious and controversial speech, but I take no exception whatever to that. When I entered the House— probably before he was born—I did not ask for the indulgence of hon. Members, and that was only two days after I entered; and I made a very contentious debating speech.
I still have the Press record of that speech. Just as I compliment the hon. Member for Meriden, so I was complimented on my address many years ago. Occasionally, when I feel depressed, or "under the weather ", I look for it and with its discovery comes a complete change of climate. At last I feel that I have something to be proud about. So I hope that the hon. Member—although we on this side violently disagree with many of his contentious observations—will continue to address the House as he thinks fit.
After all, that is the prime consideration. We must never be afraid to say what we feel, whether it pleases our colleagues or not. I would go further.

In existing circumstances, one must be forthright, consistent with one's opinions and principles, even though it displease the Goveriment of which one happens to be a supporter.
Last night, I listened to a play on the radio called "Peter Wentworth", an excellent play indeed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It was all about a Member of Parliament who, during the 16th century, in the period of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, had the courage to stand up to his superiors, even to the Government of the day, even to the Chancellor, even to the Queen herself. Of course, he was derided and ridiculed and lambasted, as one would expect, and eventually found himself in the Tower. Fortunately, that is an unlikely contingency on this occasion. If I may mention it, as a digression, the author of the play was Mr. Speaker himself. I take full advantage of Peter Wentworth, created by Mr. Speaker, to draw the moral, "Say what you please as long as you believe honestly and sincerely in the truth of what you say." So much for that.
When I listened to other hon. Members, the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) and my colleagues, reading their speeches this afternoon, I felt that it was wrong. One wonders who their speech writers are. I have never had to avail myself of any advantageous aid of that sort. Perhaps my language is not so refined, not so eloquent. Let me make it clear beyond any possibility of doubt that I do not propose to enter into an argument on the prices and incomes policy with the Opposition—I mean the Opposition on the other side of the House. I understand their motivation. They have no constructive policy.
Take the ambiguous utterances of the right hon. Gentleman. It was a clear indication of a lack of understanding of modern economic requirements. His speech was just a lot of pabulum. I dismiss the Opposition, not with contempt, but with a certain amount of derision, except for this. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if the Opposition were not in favour of an incomes policy. However, he would like an incomes policy, but when he got down to brass tacks we discovered that it was "high profits, and pay the worker what you think he deserves." If we are to judge from what


has happened in the past, the worker would always be worse off.
The Opposition no doubt believes this quite sincerely, but we are against it. I am entitled to say on behalf of every one of my hon. Friends, whatever their opinions may be about certain parts of this Bill, that we are in favour of planning the economic future of our country. One right hon. Gentleman tried to associate a number of my hon. Friends with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I dismiss the suggestion with contempt. It was creating prejudice to suggest it. It is so easy to say that the right hon. Member for Easington, who is myself, is associated in policy and philosophy and economic understanding with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. But no one believes it, not even the right hon. Gentleman who mentioned the matter; it it a form of prejudice.
For some days now there has been considerable excitement and speculation about what would happen tonight in the Division Lobby. The Government need not fear. This is not only because of the prejudice created, and other attempts to create it, but because the Whips have been around, suffering from excessive perspiration, approaching Members who seem to have doubts about the policy. I understand that some of my hon. Friends have succumbed to their blandishments. They did not come to me. No, the Government have nothing to fear tonight. They will get their majority, but they should not suffer any illusion. They will get a majority for this Bill, including the penal Clauses, including the delaying section—perhaps the two most objectionable features of this legislation.
The Government must be under no illusion about this. A far greater number than those of my hon. Friends who may abstain tonight, or who introduced an Amendment, which has not been selected by Mr. Speaker, have grave doubts about this Bill. They will vote for the Government for various reasons. Pressure has been exerted. Some will vote because, well, they wish to display loyalty—they do not want to be counted. Some will vote for the Bill because of the implied suggestion, almost a threat, that if the Government suffer a derisory majority tonight there might be another General

Election, and there would be a wholesale massacre of the innocents.
All kinds of pressure have been exerted, and we have therefore to accept the inevitability that tonight the Government will get their majority—30 or 40, I do not mind a bit. It is not passing this Bill that matters, either tonight or on its subsequent stages. It is the reaction among the trade unions. I do not pose as a great authority on trade unionism, although I have my union card in my pocket. I was associated with the movement at the beginning of this century. I was national organiser of a union, as well as branch secretary and the like.
I may not be a great authority on modern trade unionism, but this I do know: the attitude of union leaders is to promise better conditions of labour and higher wages as a bait to potential members. That is traditional and they are unlikely to depart from their attitude, no matter what is contained in this legislation. I do not mean that the traditional process of collective bargaining must continue for ever. There must be some restraint, if the Government are pursuing an economic policy and endeavouring to prevent inflation on wage and price changes.
I notice that the Government have added something which does not matter a great deal—restraint on dividends. That latter is no concession to me at all. I understand exactly what it means. What will happen as a result of this Bill? It has been suggested by the General Secretary of the T.U.C. that it will not work. Ministers have said that it will not work. Many of my hon. Friends have said "Well, anyway it will not work." All that the Government have asked for are reserve powers. They suggest that it might be unnecessary to operate those provisions of the Bill which impose penalties, except in the very rare case of a minority using sabotage. That word was used in another speech.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, replying to a Question in this House, informed us that these powers would only be used in the case of a minority. What is the effect of that? A minority say that they will not accept the decision that is imposed upon them by the Government. They refuse to


accept the delaying factor. They say that an agreement has been reached between the employers and the union which may be consistent with the criteria rn-posed by the Government, or it may exceed the criteria. Instead of 3½ per cent., it may be 6 per cent, or 7 per cent. That is a possibility which the Minister has admitted. They dislike and resent the delay of several months, and they suggest a strike.
I ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate, or anybody following me who objects to the line that some of my hon. Friends and myself are taking, what kind of action is proposed. Obviously, prosecution is proposed, or it may be that the Bill will not work and nothing will be done. If nothing is to be done, why proceed with the penal Clause of the Bill? It has been suggested in a previous speech that this is a very useful deterrent; it keeps the minority in order. To quote Robert Burns,
The fear o'hell's a hangman's whip
To haud the wretch in order.
Is that what we want hanging over the heads of trade unionists? They are not all malcontents, truculent people, inclined to sabotage. They are decent, honourable, law-abiding citizens. Do we want hanging over their heads the threat that they will be prosecuted if they insist on the implementation of an agreement which has been honourably reached between the employers and the representatives of the union of which they are members? Are we to understand that that threat will not be resented? If there is sabotage and a minority are prosecuted, what do the Government expect to happen—that other men will not come out in sympathy? That is the traditional attitude that has been ignored by the Government and by some of those who support the Government.
I am not opposed to economic planning, neither are my hon. Friends. As a member of the Attlee Government I was responsible, as a result of a challenge by some of my colleagues, for producing a memorandum on a national wages policy, the essential feature of which was the declaration, after agreement and investigation, of a minimum wage enforceable by law. It was rejected by the Cabinet. It has been said that this idea has been suggested to many

trade union leaders, but that they do not like legislation which imposes a penalty. I am not opposed to a national wages policy. I am opposed to anything in the nature of a threat such as this Bill imposes, or the implementation of that threat in practice by prosecution, fines, penalties and possibly imprisonment. I say to my colleagues on this side of the House, I say to the House and I say to the Government, that if anything of that sort happened, the hope of the economic recovery of this country is doomed for many years to come.
I want economic recovery, and so do we all. We want to get out of the red. We want to be economically independent so far as it is possible to be independent in this world. We want to hold up our heads and to feel that this country is great and based on sound economic foundations.
To proceed in the direction that is now proposed by the Government will produce resentment by a large body of trade unionists, and by many trade unions who will not be prepared to accept it for one reason or another. They will resent it, and at the end of the day the result will be a lack of support for the Labour Party upon which the Government are based.
That is why I object to the policy. I know that it does not go down well with some of my colleagues. I have noticed that in the last week or so Ministers who ordinarily are very amiable and who used to call me by my first name, or at any rate by my diminutive, pass by and look furtively in another direction. I have noticed it particularly among the junior Ministers. According to what has happened recently, it is possible for senior Ministers who retire to get lucrative employment outside, but juniors are in a rather inferior position which they dislike. Anybody who, to use their language, "rocks the boat" or "upsets the apple-cart" is almost regarded as a traitor. I have been a loyal supporter of the Government. I have bent over backwards to support the Government. This is a secret history, but I disclose it. When I was Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party I played many tricks and indulged in all kinds of devices to keep the Government in power. There was nothing treasonable about it. I am


very glad that I had the opportunity of doing it. But the time comes when one must speak out.
I am very disturbed about another matter which has a bearing on penal legislation. I object strongly to the penal legislation because I dislike the repercussions and the reactions which I envisage. I am also disturbed that the Government no longer appear to take any notice of their supporters. They ride rough-shod over the opinions of their supporters. It has been suggested that occasionally there should be contact. There is contact, but the Government make it as plain as the noonday sun, as the Prime Minister did the other day, when he said that the Government must govern. I have always agreed about that, but the Government must take notice of the views of their supporters. They must give some consideration to their supporters' views.
It may be that the Government are wrong and their supporters are right. After all, the Government have been responsible for errors of judgment. I will not go into that in any detail. I am gravely concerned about this. In case there is a misunderstanding, I am not in the pocket of the Left-wing and they are certainly not in my pocket. I am quite independent. I have come to a certain conclusion of my own volition.
I am not one of those who came into the House recently and who have been professors, students of history, historians and the rest of it. I am just an ordinary member of the party with vast experience of the party and, if I may say so, experience is perhaps more important in a matter of this sort. It leads to judgment, and that is what is wanted in the party.
When I see what is happening, when we are told to go into the Lobby even when we dislike a policy, the time has come to say, "No. It will not do any longer." I will not vote against the Government tonight, and I know that it will be said that I have not the courage to vote against them. I have, of course. But I do not want to vote against them. I do not want to vote at all, but I will not do it ostentatiously by remaining in my seat.
However, before I conclude, if I can remember it, let me quote a piece of Shakespeare:
O judgment! about are fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason.

I say that because many have grave doubts. The Government are trying to enforce something which is unpopular in the party, not only among my hon. Friends, but throughout the party generally, throughout the trade union movement and throughout the country. It is a policy which is resented. I dislike it, and I cannot vote for it.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has deployed a fairly formidable case for abstaining, and undoubtedly a great deal of the drama will centre on the Vote later this evening. However, I wish to refer to that in my concluding remarks.
Substantially, this is an argument about the law of supply and demand, as opposed to the presumably preferred alternative of some kind of dirigisme.
One person above all others has demonstrated that he does not believe in the law of supply and demand, and that is the Patronage Secretary. With the Finance Bill upstairs and, therefore, with the Floor of the House clear for debates of major consequence, it seems highly ironic that only one day can be spared for a debate of such significance to the House and of such concern to the heart and soul of the party opposite.
My major objection to the Bill is that it adds to the junk which already litters the scrapyard of economic ambiguity. We have had more than enough of that over recent years. This legislation adds considerably to it.
In the interests of brevity and of the many hon. Members who wish to speak, I will refer only to three instances. The first concerns the prices aspect of the policy. The right hon. Lady made great play today with the importance that she attached to the prices aspect of the legislation. I wonder how genuine and successful she will be in her determination to hold down prices, and what may be the consequences of that policy on the demand strategy which was contained in the Chancellor's Budget, because it is at least arguable that the whole demand strategy of the Budget could be put in jeopardy by the "success" of the right hon. Lady in her policy on prices.
In holding that view, I do no more than echo the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden).


As the Finance Bill is being considered upstairs, the House was denied the pleasure and privilege of hearing his speech, and I would underline my argument by a brief quotation from it, because his words deserve to be heard on the Floor of the House.
Referring to the Budget strategy of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, he said:
I am less than happy about the activities of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, who is running around the country assuring people that prices will come down. In the first place, if she has any general success, that will destroy the chances of the strategy succeeding. In the second place, she will have no success anyway, and she is doing what the Government have constantly done—building up ft further source of disillusion. Promises are being made which will not be honoured, and we shall later pay the price for that."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 13th May, 1968; c. 731.]
The second point of economic ambiguity concerns whether or not this is a policy which has social motivation. It has been argued that it is intended politically to determine income relativities to favour the lower paid. It was, to use the words of the right hon. Lady today,
 as much a social policy as an economic policy.
Undoubtedly, that was very much in the Prime Minister's mind when he went to the pre-conference meeting of the National Union of Agricultural Workers at Aberystwyth recently and stressed the advantages of the supposed social benefits of the policy for the lower-paid workers.
The National Union of Agricultural Workers did not respond all that well because, within a matter of days, but before publication of the Bill, it passed a resolution rejecting the Government's incomes policy. All hon. Members, particularly those from rural areas, will appreciate the significance of that, because no one would suggest seriously that agricultural workers are other than among the lower paid members of the employed community. Imagine the surprise with which they must have read Clause 5 of the Bill, which contains a provision that the awards of the Agricultural Wages Board can be deferred for a period of up to three months without reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
This cannot be conceived as anything but as a blow at the lower-paid workers,

and it cannot but give rise to further disillusion about the intentions and purport of the policy. It has been one of the Government's arguments that their policy has been immensely successful and that, with the amount of statutory backing that they have, the exhortations that have flowed from it have been fulfilled, in the main. Therefore, the suggestion that is sometimes made that they needed powers to deal with wage council awards because the awards would be applied indiscriminately to all and not merely to those on the lowest rates is not a tenable one. Whenever wage council awards have been made recently, the Government have issued an exhortation that the payments be confined to the lower-paid members who were covered by the award. Are we now to understand that this voluntary aspect of the policy was not working? That would seem to be the implication of the Government's inclusion of Clause 5 in the Bill.
I turn now to the third area of economic ambiguity, and, in a sense, this can lead to the most devastating harm of all. It is the proposition that politically motivated incomes settlements, somehow or other, can promote industrial efficiency.
All this is contained in the magic word "productivity". In some sense, I wish that there was a politicians' swear box for the word "productivity" and that, every time it was employed, a coin was extracted from the hon. Member using it.
At least my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has maintained a stout and welcome scepticism about the whole concept of productivity and productivity bargaining. In the debate which we had on this subject just over a year ago, my right hon. Friend said:
 Apparently Mr. Aubrey Jones is to give some guide lines to the Government on the way in which to assess genuine productivity. I quote as an example, Sir Paul Chambers, speaking to the Royal Statistical Society. He said:
' No method of measuring productivity of I.C.I, as a whole, or of a division, has been devised which is meaningful, of practical use and reasonably simple to compile.'
If I.C.I. cannot do it with all its resources it will be interesting to see what sort of job Mr. Aubrey Jones makes of this proposal."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 426–7.]
Since then, of course, we have heard not less but more about productivity. The


nonsense increases, and I should like to quote one example to show that this is not, in fact, some scientific concept capable of measurement, deserving the words of the Prime Minister, "copper-bottomed", or of the right hon. Lady "watertight" but rather a very flexible art indeed.
The quotation I wish to give—not because it is the most dramatic in illustrating my case but merely because it happens to deal with a contemporary dispute—concerns the B.O.A.C. pilots' dispute. I quote from the Financial Times of 16th May, which said:
… the Board of Trade has asked the parties again to evaluate the productivity benefits … it is at this stage that the dispute between the pilots and the Corporation begins.
The pilots say that the net value of the productivity items included in the agreement would result in an increase of over 126 per cent, in productivity. But the Corporation assesses those same items as only resulting in about 1·5 per cent, increase in productivity …
It is precisely when confronted with that situation that one realises that one has passed from the world of economic reality into the world of economic nonsense; that we are creating for ourselves a kind of medieval scholastic technique of economics and that Government is being increasingly involved in this. I believe this to be immensely harmful for the good name of this House and of the Government.
I conclude my observations on what I think are the points of substance which I have against this legislation by saying that I have quoted but three, but that they have a considerable compound effect in the atmosphere of disillusion which I believe to be widespread in industry today, and that we pursue these economic ambiguities at our peril.
I want to end on a generalised note of opposition. The whole philosophy of this Bill and the policy that it purports to sustain seeks to promote the concentration of decision-taking. If I understood the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) aright, his main concern was that these concentrated decision-takers ought to be the C.B.I, and the T.U.C. and that they had not been fulfilling in a successful way the concentrated decision-taking which he wished to see come about. I know that it is a quiet, respectable and seemingly modish

pursuit to tell us all that we ought to be modernists, that there ought to be larger units in industry today, that decisions of a superior calibre can be taken by qualified people operating in a larger context. I beg leave to have very serious doubts indeed about this, not least for the reasons referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) in his excellent maiden speech, when he touched upon the dangers of non-elective bodies.
I would say this to my hon. Friends. We in the Tory Party spend a great deal of time talking about taxation, and rightly, but I believe that this trend towards a policy of prices and incomes which concentrates decision-taking either in government or in those authorities that government would like to sub-contract policy to will snuff out liberty and stifle initiative even more effectively than will high taxation.
We shall have a vote tonight, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington that the Government will win—but it will be more than just a ritual vote; it will be a quite symbolic vote, because although the dirigistes on the Treasury Bench will get their way, the votes and the abstentions that will be recorded this evening will show that there are many in this House who echo the majority in the country who anxiously perceive the absurdities and the dangers of an incomes policy, and liberty never had more need of champions than now.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I wish to address myself to the Amendment which is on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. This is an historic debate for this Government and the trade union and Labour movements, and I hope that the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his very erudite arguments. I know his great interest in this subject, which he follows meticulously in this House. I have noted the points made by the Opposition Front Bench, because this is an argument which we on this side of the House have got to get sorted out and to get straight as soon as possible.
I would say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George


Brown), for whom I have great personal respect, that to try to link some of us on this side with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and his economic policy is a travesty of the facts and of justice. He knows as well as anybody else that those of us who are critical of the prices and incomes policy, and particularly the proposed legislation, want an alternative socialist economic policy, which we have spelled out on many occasions and will again, and it has nothing to do with laissez-faire capitalism or anything of that nature.
I come now to the question of this Bill, the effect it will have, whether it will work and how it will operate. I heard my right hon. Friend this afternoon talk at some length in expounding the details of the Bill. In particular she mentioned one part which has disturbed many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House: paragraph 3 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, where it says:
to delay making orders implementing proposals by Wages Councils.

This is an extension of the previous order.
How can the Government say in one voice that they are in favour of the lower-paid workers and then put themselves in a position to refer agricultural workers' wages to the wages boards in particular, which many of us on this side now believe are a complete and utter failure? This is true in many fields where, unfortunately, trade unionism has failed to operate and where that much derided factor, collective bargaining, has not been able to play its normal part. There are those who deride collective bargaining and talk about higher-paid and selected workers getting an advantage; but they do this by forms of collective bargaining through a trade union organisation and wages councils which were set up to look after the lower-paid and badly organised workers, but which have not brought the desired results. This is one effort at legislation which has not brought results. Consequently, it is absolutely reprehensible for the Minister to take these powers.
We are told that wage claims are dangerous if they are above the norm.

The engineers are asking for a £2 increase. We are told that this is in excess of the norm. There is no "copper-bottomed" productivity to go with the claim and, in consequence, it is said that its acceptance would lead to wage inflation. I am willing to bet that the engineering employers who are most opposed to paying the £2 a week increase are the inefficient employers who do not go in for productivity or investment. Low wages have held back the productive industries. May I give a classic example? We have in the machine tool industry some of the most skilled craftsmen in Britain. Only in recent years, when one or two firms have broken through the net and moved on to investment, productivity and higher earnings, has there been a real change in that industry. It is therefore wrong to say that higher wages bring about inflation.
We are consistently told that wages are outstripping production and are in advance of prices. The Minister of Labour's own figures from 1960 to 1967 are extremely interesting. Taking 100 as the base, in 1961 the gross domestic product per head of the labour force increased from 101·6 per cent, to 117·8 per cent, in 1967. That covers a period of Conservative and Labour Governments. Real average weekly earnings, as opposed to basic rates, increased from 102·5 per cent, in 1961 to 1166 per cent, in 1967. Production slightly exceeded earnings over those seven years. The two things virtually went hand in hand. Surely that is the answer to those people who talk about wages outstripping production.
When we have a wage freeze and a restriction such as that which the Prices and Incomes Bill and previous legislation have put upon earnings, and when we have a deflationary policy, certain sections still find ways of getting round the wage freeze and obtaining increased earnings, but there is no productivity to go with them. This is the serious situation which we face.
I am all in favour of productivity, but, my word, some nonsense is being talked about it. I have negotiated on productivity as an engineering shop steward in industry for 15 years. We did it every day in negotiations about payment by results, and so on. The vast part of the


engineering industry is involved in this type of daily negotiation. What cannot be done is what the Minister is trying to do. One cannot run around in a great flurry and expect productivity agreements to be popping out of the letter boxes day after day. Such agreements take a lot of detailed negotiation. Many of my friends have been involved in them as employers and as trade union leaders. One must iron out the problems. One must discover the management's problems. New equipment might be needed to carry through the agreement. Investment might be needed, and changes accepted by the workers might be necessary.
To hear some of my right hon. Friends talk, anyone would think that productivity had just been invented. What sort of world do they think we have been living in? Some of us have been living in the real world and consequently we understand the situation. A Prices and Incomes Bill will not deal with the problem. It will have an adverse effect. People will become restrictionist. We hear a lot of talk about getting rid of practices which have lasted for generations. We shall get rid of them only in a period of stability, growth, full employment and rising wages. We shall not get rid of them in the type of madcap economy which we have at the moment.
I wish my right hon. Friend the Secreary of State success, but I notice that the Economic Committee of the T.U.C. told her very quickly yesterday that it did not want legislation for setting up productivity committees within industry. Some of my right hon. Friends have legislation on the brain.
I move now to the prices issue. We are asked, "Are you in favour of a prices and incomes policy?" We live in a mixed economy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at a meeting which was fully reported—and she repeated it today—that the scandalous increase of 114 per cent, in the price of hearing aid batteries was to be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. She said that she and the Minister of Technology would meet the firm and hammer out the matter. We are to have two Cabinet Ministers chasing a price increase of Is. 6d. on an article bought by a small minority, but an important minority, in

this country. How can we expect thousands of prices to be dealt with?
There is a conflict between what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says and what the right hon. Member the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity says. The Chancellor made it abundantly clear in the Budget that prices would go up, that he would take purchasing power out of the economy and that he needed £923 million. From where will he get it if he does not take it out of the purchasing power of the people we represent?
That brings me to one of my central points. We are told consistently by the Prime Minister that he has changed his mind about legislation since devaluation. If there were any possible chance of having a price and incomes policy before devaluation, there is none now.

Mr. George Brown: Mr. George Brown indicated dissent.

Mr, Orme: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend disagrees. The effect of devaluation is that real wages will go down. People in our type of society will not accept that.
Let us consider what happened at the municipal elections a week last Thursday. The Government get the worst of all worlds. We have made a prices and incomes policy the central theme of our economic policy. If wages go up, we get blamed. If incomes do not go up, it is, apparently, the Government's responsibility. We cannot win. It is people on the other side who are gaining by carrying out this policy. We are playing into their hands.
I ask the Government to consider what has happened elsewhere. Look at what has happened in Sweden. The whole conception has been destroyed by wage drift. Look at what has happened in Holland. Not only has the policy gone but it has taken half the trade union movement with it as well—a disastrous policy. Look at what is happening in France at the moment. Some of their problems are basically economic. They are in trouble in France at the moment. Mon General had many fanciful ideas about types of legislation. It just will not work, and people in a free society and a free economy as it exists at the moment will not accept it.
I want to come now to the norm. It is mysterious how it appeared in the Bill


at 3½ per cent., and in the White Paper, and now disappears. The strongest critic, wanting to get rid of it, was the C.B.I. The C.B.I, wanted a nil norm right from the beginning. That is in the document issued by the C.B.I, on April 5th, 1968. Paragraph 8 says:
The Government have decided to impose a ceiling of 3½ per cent, to be applied as an annual rate on all wages and salary settlements reached on or after 20th March, 1968. We warned the Government that there was a real danger that this would be widely interpreted as the norm ".
The document continues along those lines.
When we start talking about norms, nil norms, rates and so forth, we know—and my hon. Friends on this side of the House know it is true—that in the main this legislation is going to affect trade unionists, people in the public industries where control can be exercised and in the large companies which may play along with the Government for a short while. But we know that millions of people are going to get by it. What an injustice!
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper talked about "getting it across". I would tell him that it is not our propaganda, nor our lines of communication, that are wrong; it is the policy that is wrong. That is why people have rejected it. They have rejected the policy, and yet he comes along today, reading very nicely from the Letter of Intent. My word, that is all ready to go into the British Museum.

Mr. George Brown: Just before it goes in, can I say to my hon. Friend that that does not seem to be an argument. Will he tell me what is wrong with it?

Mr. Orme: I will tell my right hon. Friend what is wrong with it. He set off on this long road to Brighton, to the T.U.C., on a voluntary principle. He himself now says that it must be backed by statutory legislation. He even goes further. Perhaps he will allow me to say something further on that, because I believe his speech today, while I disagree with many points in it, was fundamental on some of the points which my right hon. Friend put so well to the House.
But turning to the position in Europe, not only have wages councils and the whole concept of machinery broken down

but anybody would think wages were at the centre of all our economic problems. Anybody would think that tremendously high earnings in Britain were responsible for all the purchasing of the imports which are creating the problem of our balance of payments. But when we look at the "league table" we see we are down at the bottom. I do not intend to read out the figures of what other countries earn. I have here the Financial Times and other appendices. In fact, we are extremely competitive. Many of our problems arise not from high wages but from low wages. What we should be aiming for are low unit costs and higher wages. That is the way to productivity, not the way we are going at the present time.
I want to speak particularly in relation to the T.U.C. about which a lot has been said this afternoon. I have here the T.U.C. Economic Review, 1968. In paragraph 221 it is stated:
There are welcome signs that the Government realises that it has in the past laid too great a burden on incomes policy, notably as a means of correcting particularly Britain's balance of payments problems, and also that it has accepted that attempts to impose incomes policy by legislation are at best self-defeating. The General Council particularly welcome the Government's decision to rely on the voluntary incomes policy to meet the needs of devaluation ".
That is the answer to my right hon. Friend who speaks about rogue elephants or rogue mice. That is the General Council of the T.U.C. talking. He would get very short shrift if he went down there with his policy at the present time, because although he persuaded them once, they will not bite again because it is not in their interests and it will not work. What is wanted in this economy is growth, and that cannot be achieved by repressive legislation, by hostility to the trade unions and unemployment. I am sick of saying in this House that British workers can be persuaded but they cannot be coerced; and it is time we learned the basic facts with which we have to deal.
I want to come to the trade unions about which some extremely interesting things have been said. The Guardian repeats this morning what the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us at one of our previous meetings, that whenever he sallies forth with the prices and incomes policy nailed to the mast he is


asked, everywhere he goes, "How is it going? What is happening? How is your legislation?" These are probably the friendly gnomes mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper. We are stuck with the policy. What an admission! We are partly to blame because in the first place we nailed that damned flag to the mast and now we are stuck with it, and in consequence we are having to pay for the fact. People overseas, our creditors, international investors and particularly people with "hot" money are in a position of not only of telling this country what policy we should operate but also wanting to see how it is operated.
I see that Mr. Richard Goode and his friend from the International Monetary Fund are here today. I hope we can get some short message through to them. My right hon. Friend raised a serious point; he really put his finger on it, because there is a great difference of opinion in this party and in the Government on whether or not there should be permanent legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper, with his method of going to the centre of things, said he believes the policy is now feasible only if it is permanent. He asked what will happen if we go through this all over again in 18 months' time. I need hardly remind my hon. Friends that in 18 months' time we will be on the eve of a general election and it would not be a very good thing to be going through all this nonsense. If we are going to drop it, why not drop it now? Why carry on at the present time?
There is a general feeling—and the right hon. Member for Belper emphasised this—that the trade unions should move into more central control and that the T.U.C. should have greater power. While he is saying all that, the effect of the Government's policy is driving trade unions the other way. They will not co-operate on that sort of basis. They will not co-operate when they are told that there will be no more legislation and then it comes, when they are told that it will not be operated and then it is operated. We had 14 wages Orders before the House and only one on prices. They remember these things. They go to the very heart of the situation.
It should not escape our notice that it was in the heavy industrial areas of

Britain that this party received its greatest setback a week last Thursday. In the heavy industrial concentrations, it is the industrial worker and his family who have withdrawn their support because they no longer have confidence in what the Labour Government are doing. They do not necessarily put up a detailed and articulate case, but they are dissatisfied. They are worried by the uncertainty which exists, by the dismal statements constantly coming from the Government, and by the lack of any sign of light at the end of the tunnel or any real chance of a true alternative road for development. A worker at the giant A.E.I, factory in Manchester said to me after the poll, "You thought you could take us for granted, but you cannot". This is what our own people are saying.
When we talk about these things in the House of Commons, we are talking about the trade union movement. Yet conference after conference has turned against the Government's policy, not just by the odd vote or the president's casting vote. Huge conferences, one after another—not only the A.E.U.—have rejected the punitive Clauses in the legislation and have rejected the voluntary system as well. They say that the whole thing stinks, they do not want it, and they will not have it.
That is our present situation. I cannot support the Government's proposal, however much it is embroidered with references to the corporate State and all that that entails. It will not work in this country. I am in favour of Socialist policy. My hon. Friends have spelt it out. In view of the time, and in fairness to other hon. Members, I shall not spell it out again. We are faced with a very difficult decision tonight. My hon. Friends and I have never doubted the sincerity of our other right hon. and hon. Friends in what they are doing, and I am sure that they do not doubt mine. But on this issue we must stand up to be counted. We have tried to persuade the Government to come some way towards us, to drop the punitive Clauses, to talk to us and to try to find a way round the difficulty. But when we look at the legislation, it gets worse in some respects, not better.
I am a Socialist and a trade unionist. I feel my position extremely keenly, but


I shall not vote for the Government tonight. It need not be said that neither I nor my hon. Friends will be found in the Opposition Lobby. I do not need to explain to the Opposition—I think they understand—that their alternative policy is not ours. We have other policies. Those of us who will not support the Government tonight take our stand on the conviction that their policy is mistaken, that it is wrong, that it might well be going past the last chance which this Government have of recovering from the serious economic situation and the loss of confidence in Britain today.
My hon. Friends and I have asked for only one change, a change of policy. We shall continue to fight for that because we believe that ours is the alternative policy to the one put forward by my right hon. Friends and to the one put forward by the Opposition. Our policy has not been tried, but it is there and we shall continue to fight for it.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The eloquent sincerity of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) confirms my fear that within the wretched and unnecessary confines of a one-day debate there is a real danger that the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) and the Conservative Front Bench will be let off the hook, owing to the frank and open ventilation of domestic differences within the Labour Party. It would be most unfortunate if the Conservative Front Bench were let off the hook on this issue.
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), in his trenchant criticism of a free-for-all in wages, characterised that free-for-all in terms of "Powellism". He swung the searchlight of his gaze round the Chamber until eventually it lit upon the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) sitting on the back benches. This added great dramatic force to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but I believe that it seriously missed the point of the debate, namely, that Powellism is now enthroned on the Conservative Front Bench.
It is entirely irresponsible for the Opposition, who claim to be poised to take over office as the Government, but

who are quite unwilling to take up the weapons which the hon. Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) and for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) and others advocate, should nevertheless proclaim no doubt partly in the interests of the Sheffield, Brightside, by-election, the total sanctity of free collective bargaining.
I wish to make clear that it will be on no such grounds that Liberal Members, with a feeling of some disappointment, will feel bound to vote against the Bill. We shall do so not in any sense asserting in this day and age the total sanctity of free collective bargaining. Liberals believe that the ordered growth of real wages requires a measure of State intervention in the bargaining process, for at least three fairly obvious reasons.
We take that view, first, because we are a country pledged to maintain relatively full employment, in spite of being so vastly dependent on exports and having a chronic balance of payments problem which will be with us for some time. Second, for perfectly honourable reasons, honourable because they derive largely from our pioneering rôle in industrialisation, we still have an old-fashioned wage structure in many sectors of industry which is not being modernised rapidly enough by being allowed to jog along with free bargaining methods. Third, we take that view because ours is a society in which, on the whole, by no means only Liberals believe that elements of potential monopoly power, wherever they be and from whatever sector of society they derive strength, must be watched and, if necessary, curbed.
For those three reasons, we were quite right, as we have made plain for some time now, to support a measure of State intervention on the incomes front. In that spirit, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I voted for the first Prices and Incomes Bill which set up the early warning system. We voted against the succeeding Prices and Incomes Bills not because they were interventionist but because they were so negative in the freeze which they were designed to apply.
We hoped that certain valuable lessons would have been learned from what were at times frankly described by the Government as the experiments of the Prices and Incomes Acts of 1966 and 1967, and we


hoped that the fruit of those lessons would be embodied in the Bill this year.
The first lesson was that any sort of appeasing; reference to dividends in a Measure of this kind no longer cuts any ice with the great mass of working people unless it be accompanied by some encouragement for workers to get access to, and a fair share of, the company reserves which automatically benefit from dividend restraint. Clearly, that lesson has not been leaned in the Measure now before us.
Second, we hoped that the new legislation would show that the Government accepted a useful but limited rôle— certainly not a bombastic or highly impressive rôle—for the Prices and Incomes Board in restraining some price increases against the essential background of real frankness about the Government's general policy on prices, namely, that prices must rise in present circumstances.
We hoped that the Government would have learned that any attempt to befuddle the British people by suggesting that the legislation contained a magic weapon to keep down prices over a broad front, would not work at all.
On incomes, what we were looking for was intervention to assist the rapid reform of large parts of the pay-bargaining structure so that engineers and others would get from the legislation a clear message that for their perfectly legitimate expectations of more pay they must no longer look to nation-wide, or industry-wide negotiations, but that they must look to the plant level, or at any rate the local level, or in some few cases the company level, for future benefits. I think that a great service would have been done to engineers at various levels, and especially the younger members of the union, if the Government had spelled out that message quite clearly, because that is the message for the future anyway.
We hoped, too, that there would be some indication of where the Government were going to put their emphasis in using their interventionist power. Instead, we have the most extraordinary muddle which is embodied in paragraph 32 of the White Paper, namely, the spelling out of the fact that increases can take place, and can be negotiated, at four different levels of negotiation, the national, the local, the company, and the plant, and

yet in some wholly magic way the Government suppose, and the Bill presupposes, that pay improvements at those four different levels can all be contained beneath one ceiling. There is nothing in the Bill, or in the speeches which have been made commending it to the House, to indicate how on earth that can possibly be done.
We believe that the Government would have deserved support if they had said frankly that within a ceiling of 3½ per cent. there could be no room for pay improvements at national level, and that people would have to look to plant and company bargaining for any improvements. But that has not been spelled out.
The three criteria which are held to justify pay increases under the Government's policy are in essence matters of local application. The first is more exacting work or a major change in working practices. That is something which can be decided only at the individual plant, or perhaps occasionally by reference to company policy. It is not a matter on which there can be a national verdict. The whole nation and all the members of the engineering unions do not at one moment take on more exacting work or make major changes in their working practices, and it would be highly undesirable if they were to do so.
The second criterion is when it seems essential to secure a change in the distribution of manpower. If we are to be realistic, we must recognise that that is a district matter. I believe that the time has gone when hon. Members, even on these back benches, dreamed of mass migration from, say, the Midlands to the rural parts of this country in the interests of a mobility of labour policy. It does not happen that way. Migration happens in an overwhelming degree within the district where people have their roots, and can get back to their homes at night to enable them to keep in touch with their families, and so on. Pay changes in the interests of a better distribution of manpower are a matter for district negotiation.
The third criterion is that existing wage and salary levels are too low to maintain a reasonable standard. My party has great sympathy with the idea of an enforceable minimum wage, but all the discussions that we have had—and we do not pretend to be the most experienced


body of opinion in the House on that matter—have shown that there is no hope within the foreseeable future of an enforceable minimum wage of nation-wide application, because standards of living, costs of living, and material expectations vary enormously from one corner of these islands to another.
Here again we say that the admirable and essential effort to enforce reasonable minimum earnings is a matter which lends itself to local or district negotiation. That is the emphasis which we would have liked to have seen in the Bill. Because there is a total lack of it, and because there was no indication in the Minister's speech that she intends even to administer the legislation in that way, it is with a feeling of disappointment and regret that we shall go into the Lobby tonight against the Bill.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) dealt with a great deal of detail which I do not think affects the main principles of the Bill. If I might come as near to his constituency as possible, I turn my attention to the West Riding, where people adopt the policy of living within their income. That is what we are talking about today, and I find that the electors of Yorkshire apply the same standards to their politicians and how they run their affairs as they do at home. I therefore do not want to touch on what was said by the hon. Gentleman.
I am much more interested in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), because his experience is very similar to mine. I thought that he made the best speech that I have ever heard him make in the House. It was delivered with great sincerity, but it reminded me of the occasion on which a Harvard academic went to see President Roosevelt. He talked to the great man about deflation, about deficit financing, and about monetising silver. F. D. R. said, "Professor, that is fine, but one thing you have not told me. What do I do next on Monday morning?". That is the problem with which we have to deal. I believe that if we do not pledge ourselves behind the Government tonight pretty severe things will happen by Monday morning.
It is all very well to argue around the legislation as though we had all the time in the world. Over the weekend Sir Roy Harrod did not dissent from the Government that they tried for three years to avoid devaluation. So did 1, within my limits. I did not greet devaluation with the euphoria with which it was greeted by people on the Left of my party. I regarded it as a kind of defeat. It was sad, but we now have to climb out of that state of affairs.
We have now had devaluation for six months, and this debate, whatever the Chief Whip may proclaim it, is a vote of confidence in the Government. I do not know why it has not been called that, because it is a test of the Government's credibility. That is how it will be understood abroad. The test is whether the Government can rally a Parliamentary majority behind them. That is the only thing that will count. The test is whether the Government are seen to be in charge of the situation. If the majority tonight is derisory, then the Government will be devalued throughout the world. So will the Labour Party be devalued because I do not happen to believe that one can separate this party from the Government it created. Devaluation of the £ could well follow, especially in view of the things we are hearing from abroad. The whole credit of the Government rests on this vote.
I want to consider the situation in the context of the situation now. It does not matter much what we thought two or three years ago. I do not much blame my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for changing his mind from time to time. Emerson once said that foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds —which indicates that my right hon. Friend is a rather large-minded man.
However, I am consistent in this, in that my hon. Friends know that I have never believed that a voluntary system was possible from the trade unions. I have always taken the argument that, on the hypothesis that wage regulation is a necessity, the State must take the responsibility because the trade unions' traditional role is to get the most they can for their members. Their job is not necessarily to consider the whole economy. I have taken part, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West has taken part, in enough


demarcation and differential disputes in ensuring that craftsmen get the right incentives, to know full well that we are ready to take part in a bit of infighting to get what we want for those we represent. There is no question about that. It is no part of a union's function to frustrate its own purpose.
I want to return now to the difficulties faced by that band of brothers, the 17 hon. Members who are in the A.E.U. We are a very curious lot. Last year, under Lord Carron, the A.E.U. went on record in favour of an incomes policy. I was in favour and my hon. Friend was against. This year, under another president, by a vote of 3 to 2, a million votes were passed against the incomes policy at Croydon. One who voted for the incomes policy last year changed his mind. Two were sick. The president was out. That was hardly a qualitative vote. When the rank and file, through the National Committee, met, it decided that it was against any incomes policy, voluntary or statutory. It decided that it believed in a free-for-all.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) made one mistake when he was trying to liken the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South West (Mr. Powell) with those on this side who believe in a free-for-all. Of course, they believe in a free-for-all. But he believes that trade unions are an excretion on the body politic and that they should not have an existence at all. So, in effect, in this House the 17 members of the A.E.U., of last year's vintage or this—a good thing that we have Parliamentary privilege—are having to make up their own minds where they stand on this issue.
Presumably everyone on this side of the House agrees with price regulation. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), speaking on 13th June last year, said that he was in favour of free wage negotiations with price control. That, if I may say so, is the only logical alternative policy I have heard from those who are opposing the incomes policy tonight. Presumably, everyone on this side also believes in the limitation of company distributions and that we should stop rent increases. But many do not believe in any regulation of wages.
Taking all these suppositions together, the whole thing is a nonsense. It is not on. Let us consider rent increases. I have been chairman of a local finance committee. I know that, unless one balances the housing account, with the system of pooling housing accounts which we have now, one merely lays the burden on the general body of ratepayers, many of whom are more hard up than the beneficiaries. I also know, because I have studied the figures, that 73 per cent. of all local government expenditure goes on salaries and wages fixed by trade union agreement over which the local authority has no control. This element is far too large to brush to one side and to say that wages should have a special place and be immune.
Of course, all this has led to a great deal of double talk—the phoney productivity agreements, the promises which never come off. We have all seen them. Of course, we all agree about increased productivity and efficiency. I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) when he says that there should be a swear box for the use of the word "productivity" because it has become so devalued.
I do not think that the alternatives being put up now are serious in the context of the present situation. It is argued that we should liquidate our overseas portfolio. I do not quite see the object. Is it to make ourselves stronger or is it to use the proceeds to finance consumption, which is what I fear the answer to be? During the war, no less than two-thirds of our overseas balances were liquidated when we were trying to buy time for America to enter the war. One of the good things of post-war financing is the way in which we have built up our balances so well again. If we were to tap those balances before the weekend, that would cause such a crisis of confidence that we would get into deep trouble next Monday morning. Let us not be mistaken about this. It is a question of whether we should eat our seed corn accompanied by a massive loss of international confidence.
It is suggested also that we should go in for import controls again. I was in office when we started a sort of import control in 1964. This was the beginning of our troubles.

Mr. John Lee: It was a surcharge. Unfortunately, there were no import controls.

Mr. Pannell: My hon. Friend may not know what he is talking about but I know what I am talking about. It is a form of import control to lay a 15 per cent. surcharge. On face value, we can hardly go in for import controls if we are putting all our money on an export boom which we think is going to fructify next year. Trade is a two-way street.
In considering the penal Clauses in the Bill, I have been through the speeches made since 1964 about this aspect and I have read all the gloomy prognostications. None of them have come true. There have not been any prosecutions under the penal Clauses. Nobody has gone to prison and nobody has had heavy fines lobbed on him, although that was the stock in trade of the weekend speeches made at that time. I have always held, as I said at the time, that this whole matter depends on a great deal of voluntary control. I have always regarded the statutory powers as reserve powers for the potential maverick, because there is always a minority making it hard for the majority.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while he is making the point that the penal Clauses were never used, he is speaking of a time when wages went up substantially under the 1967 Act? Why does he assume that the Government will be able to hold them under the 1968 Measure?

Mr. Pannell: We are not expecting to hold all of them. Nobody has ever suggested that everything will be held at that level. I have no doubt, however, that this is written into the Bill because it gives a reassurance to the majority who want to get along with the Government and have a sensible policy.
I believe that we are in a position to ask for some control in this sphere because we have attempted to do something for the social wage. If one considers what the Government have achieved since the Labour Party came to office and what the position was in, say, 1963, one sees that supplementary benefits went up by about 35 per cent. between October, 1964, and October, 1967.

I appreciate that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I will not give all the relevant figures. This increase of 35 per cent. mirrors increases in the whole range of social benefits. No hon. Member who will abstain tonight would not argue the case in the country that we have justified ourselves on the social advances made by the Government, although that has not been reflected in the polls because the country is mainly concerned about the credability of the Government; about whether the Government appear to be paying their way.
That is, basically, the difficulty we face. Somehow we must reinforce the Government at this time because the prospect would be grim tomorrow from our point of view. We must keep our nerve because I believe that we may be poised between deep trouble if we rat and a boom, with a better change in the political climate next year, if we keep our nerve now.
I do not imagine that I have made an eloquent speech. Time is short and I want to allow as many other hon. Members as possible to take part in the debate. However, I make this speech with the conviction that a healthy vote for the Government is necessary tonight in the interests of the Government, of the party and, more important, of the country.

7.33 p.m.

Sir Edward Brown: Having listened to most of the debate, and particularly to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am wondering why at this time my hon. Friends and I are thinking of intervening and are not instead just leaving hon. Gentlemen opposite to their own problems.
It is surprising to look back to 1964 when the Labour Party came to power. In 1966 they were elected with a higher proportion of support in the country and we wondered what policies the new Government would introduce. The first Measure to come off the stocks was the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966. We were assured by the right hon. Gentleman who was then in charge of that Measure that it would be the first and only Act of its type. Most of my hon. Friends forecast, when the Measure was in Committee, that we would see a repeat of it. Sure enough, in 1967 we got another Prices and Incomes Act and now we have an


even worse one which will go through, whatever we say and presumably however many hon. Gentlemen opposite abstain.
Like other hon. Members, I have received a great many letters on this subject. Many people in Bath have written to me asking if I can do something in representations to the Ministry about their wage and pay problems. I sent correspondence to the right hon. Lady about insurance clerks in my constituency but I received a rough reply from her stating that she intends to implement the policy, although she realises that an injustice is being committed. In other words, it is just too bad that some people happen to fall on the wrong side of the curtain.
The same can be said about the nurses. I have recently been asked by the tutors of nurses to make representations to the right hon. Lady. I shall be doing that but, in view of this debate, I have no doubt that I shall receive a negative answer. The experience that I have had in these matters is, I know, the experience of all hon. Members. We will make no change in the Bill because the executive —and we now have executive government and not Parliamentary government—have decided the policy and are simply allowing us to have a natter about it. The Government will get their way because the courage of hon. Gentlemen opposite will not allow them to go further than abstaining. They are not prepared to defeat the Government.

Mr. John Lee: Mr. John Lee rose—

Sir E. Brown: I will not give way. I wish to be brief.
Upstairs under discussion is the Transport Bill, the Race Relations Bill and the Finance Bill. On the Floor of the House we have this Measure which, in due course, will go into Committee. I wish to make it clear to you that you are at the end of your tether. The public have already reacted and have made it clear that the Government are at the point of no return. Whatever you may do, when the next election comes, despite some of the excellent speeches that have been made today, the public will show you—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that he must address hon. Members through the Chair.

Sir E. Brown: I warn hon. Gentlemen opposite that, whatever the result of tonight's vote, they have lost the confidence of the people and the trade union movement. The vote tonight will make no difference. They will not recover the confidence of the nation by trying to scrap something here and add something there. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) came clean when he said that he wanted to see this as a permanent Measure. It was the first time that he had come clean on this issue. We have seen the opposition of some hon. Gentlemen opposite who will abstain. If the Labour Party are still in power in 18 months' time, I am sure that they will introduce yet another Prices and Incomes Bill, which will be an even worse one.
The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) summed up the debate for me when he gave notice to the Govern-that they had lost the respect of their supporters in the House. They have never had the respect of my hon. Friends, and we look forward in the next few months to seeing this Measure bring them down, even if it is only in another place.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: The hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) made a typical Conservative speech, full of hot air and containing nothing of substance. Neither did it— this goes for all the speeches made by hon. Members opposite—put forward any credible alternative. Speeches by hon. Members opposite have shown only one theme—that the social services would be the first to suffer if they were ever returned as the Government.
I support this Bill. My hon. Friends will probably recall the 1966 debates, which took place in the middle of the night. I have not changed my opinion since. The Bill is an essential short-term necessity in the long-term strategy of a Labour Government. We need it because above all else it is of supreme importance that the economy of the country shall be put right. It is of crucial importance that the economy should be rock-like, because only when it is sound can we build for the future. That is what this party was sent here for, so that we can build a future. This is the reason for the Labour Party's existence— to try to change society into something


better, but until the foundation is laid we cannot move towards that society.
We as a party and Government believe in planning. Planning does not just mean control of industry or location of industry or regional development; it means having a policy and having a plan, and having an attitude to dividends and profits, to rents—and to prices and incomes. I do not see how one can divorce those two things, especially when we as a nation are dependent upon importing a tremendous amount of raw materials which we need and over which we have no control in terms of world prices. We cannot divide prices from incomes. They are inter-related and interwoven.
I believe in this Bill because I reject the system which seems to have been advocated at times from both sides of this House. I reject the free-for-all society. Like my hon. Friends, I have been in this movement long enough to have made and heard speeches similar to those made by hon. Members on this side against that kind of society but which tonight Members opposite and some of my hon. Friends are seeking to preserve. I object to the free-for-all society because it is always the militant, always the strong, who win and the lower-paid worker, the pensioner and others on fixed incomes who inevitably go to the wall.
I reject the Conservative philosophy of the law of supply and demand. I reject it because it is a jungle law and I hope that we are getting out of the jungle now. I reject the concept held by some hon. Members opposite, and some on these benches, that a trade union has the responsibility of simply looking after the interests of its own members without having any regard to the rest of the community. That is wrong. The role of the trade union movement is changing. I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) speaking earlier, because he said some very truthful things.
I quote from a speech he made in the early hours of 10th August, 1966, which sums up my feelings. He said:
I have never taken the view, and I do not take the view, … that our business in the trade union movement is simply to fight for our people's wages and not to be part of the process by which society is governed.

He went on to say:
I heard the late Ernest Bevin a long time ago … say that if all we were concerned with was earning fodder for our people there were others not nearly as good as we who could do that. The trade union movement grew up from more than earning fodder for our people. It grew up so that people could play their part in developing a new society, to help them manage that new society and to help to plan it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 1580.]
This is why I feel that now we have a Government in power which is a product of the trade union movement there should be a far greater degree of co-operation between the two than we have at the moment.
I accept, of course, that the trade unions are neither the servants nor the slaves of the Government, but equally they are not their masters. The Government are responsible for the government of the country as a whole with all the tremendous problems which that entails. I support the Bill because I believe the policy we have been and are pursuing is the means to an end—the creation of the better kind of society I want. We delude ourselves if we think we can have change —and this is what we stand for—without any upheaval or hardship. We must minimise the hardships. This is what again we have been trying to do in our legislation since 1964.
In this transitional stage we are moving from a capitalist society, through a mixed economy, into a society which will not be a Socialist society—because the promised land is a long way away—but to a society where we can begin to build a Socialist society. Do not for a moment think that the promised land is round the corner; there are many more hurdles to get over before we reach it. There can be no question that some hon. Members on this side of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) who made an eloquent speech, did the Government a disservice by implying that everything the Government have been doing was against the interests of Socialism or the philosophy behind it.
We have only to look at the legislation that this Government have brought in to prove that the Conservatives do not like us precisely because we are going about the job of laying the foundation for a better society. Certainly Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax, expense


accounts and redundancy payments were not Conservative measures. Wage-related benefits, increased pensions, supplementary allowances, travel concessions, rate rebates, rate support grant, leasehold reform, comprehensive schooling, and the Transport Bill are hardly Conservative measures. The public ownership of steel and cuts in defence have been strongly objected to by hon. Members opposite every time they were debated —hardly Tory measures. How can some of my hon. Friends argue in the light of this that we are not trying to bring about a better kind of society and trying to start the beginnings of something better?
All this is closely tied in with this Bill, because this Bill is a means towards creating the foundations on which we can build. Since 1964 wages have risen far more than prices have risen. They are all in the book. If we do not believe the book—the Ministry of Labour Gazette— hon. Members may prefer to read the speeches in HANSARD for 11th March and 1st May this year.
If we want to make progress, and we say that we do, we must reduce our cost factor, become more competitive and increase our productivity. Devaluation last November has given us one last chance. I say this not in political terms—it has given Britain as a nation one last chance. We have to win this battle. I believe that we can do it and we shall.
If my party believes in planning it must be automatically accepted that planning means control. This follows as night the day.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Of course one must accept that we cannot have a planned economy without planning wages, but does not my hon. Friend realise that there is another side to that, which is that we cannot have a planned wages sector in the sort of totally unplanned economy we have today?

Mr. Lomas: If my hon. Friend will allow me to continue my speech and to develop what I wish to say, I shall deal with that point. When we have a situation such as we are faced with at the moment we need to use control, not only over the heights of the economy, but in the field of prices and incomes and also in stimulating industry by all kinds of assistance, using all the modern tech-

niques of the Ministry of Technology and the rest, to try to persuade them to provide the new and better machinery to do the job.
If we want this Bill we have to ensure that the lower-paid worker is protected. This, I think, the Bill does. It underlines the simple basic concept that incomes should not rise faster than the rate of growth of national output. That is what the Bill is about—a recognition of a truth. We say that the legislation to which some of my hon. Friends object is necessary to protect the lower-paid workers. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) talked about plant bargaining, but has not he heard of the millions of people in local government, the health service and other public services? One does not go plant bargaining with hospital management committees and local authorities. Wage rates there are nationally negotiated, which is very proper. But it is the old story. The Liberals always have one eye shut. They can never see the obvious

Mr. F. P. Crowder: (Ruislip-Northwood): Surely it is the lower-paid worker who will really suffer from the Bill in the face of inflation, because his low wage will be kept down on the floor.

Mr. Lomas: That is not what the Bill says. It says in effect that the claim of the lower-paid worker will be allowed to go through. That is the whole purpose of the Bill. If we do not have those Clauses how can we control the mavericks and the rogue elephants in our midst, be they in the C.B.I, or in the trade union movement? I have not yet heard any trade union speaker or anyone else tell me how the trade unions will keep their house in order if someone goes astray. Of course, we want the voluntary system, but we must protect the interests of the lower-paid—and I am thinking in terms of 7 million or 8 million pensioners as well as lower-paid workers. It is therefore right and proper that we should have the Bill to protect the many against the few.
I know that prices will rise because of devaluation, but we have tried, by raising the level of the rent rebate, for example, by the increased family allowances, and other measures, to protect those who are in need and at the bottom end of the wage scale. We certainly intend to keep the closest watch on any potential


price increases, wherever they may be. The criteria for those increases are laid down in paragraph 16 of the White Paper on which the Bill is based, and the power to take action is in Clause 3.
My right hon. Friend made it abundantly clear that where she can see the case for a price reduction under the criteria laid down in paragraph 18 of the White Paper she will take action. That is right, and the Government are doing the right thing in doing something about dividends and rents. They should have done this a long time ago, but at least they have recognised the need, again in the interests of the people at the bottom end of the scale.
There is no wage freeze. Paragraph 34 of the White Paper sums the position up very clearly. It says that increases can be had
(i) where the employees concerned, for example by accepting more exacting work or a major change in working practices, make a direct contribution towards increasing productivity …"—
that is the productivity provision—
(ii) where it is essential in the national interest to secure a change in the distribution of manpower …"—
this is to encourage people to move from one industry to another to the industries where we need them most.
(iii) where there is general recognition that existing wage and salary levels are too low to maintain a reasonable standard of living;"—
this is the protection for the lower-paid worker, and:
(iv) where there is widespread recognition that the pay of a certain group of workers has fallen behind.
That again is for the protection of the lower-paid worker.
Moreover, it is spelt out in the White Paper, in page 9, that there may be above-ceiling increases for low-paid workers under a settlement which, though covering a wider group of workers, is within the ceiling. This seems to me a fair, just and honest policy. For the life of me, I cannot see why there should be such distrust of, and opposition to, the Bill in its present form. It will protect millions of people who always came off worst in the past.
My own union, the National Union of Public Employees, has benefited from two

Reports of the Prices and Incomes Board. The nurses and midwives benefited from Report No. 60 and local authority workers and Health Service ancillaries from Report No. 29, which was implemented by the Government in the interests of the lower-paid workers in the period of severe restraint in 1967. Therefore the Prices and Incomes Board and the prices and incomes policy are working in the interests of those who need to benefit.
I feel that if the trade unions will only face up to their responsibilities, recognise the gravity of the situation and appreciate that the Government seek to create the base on which we can build for future generations, we can go along together. But let us face reality. Let us take the world as it is. I say to some of my hon. Friends, "Come down from those ivory towers. By all means, keep your eyes fixed on the stars, but keep your feet on the ground, because we must deal with immediate problems. "We cannot have policies that we know are correct if the situation is not right for implementing them.
I hope that some of my hon. Friends will be a little more quick in future to praise, because they are very quick to condemn. It is time they recognised that the present Government is their Government. We have been told many times that politics is an argument about power. Of course it is. That is why we are here. But is it not recognised that there are the responsibilities of Government and the limitations of power that must be faced.
If those of my hon. Friends who are thinking of abstaining tonight are not prepared to take a realistic view of the situation and are still living in a kind of cloud cuckoo land, they do not deserve to be members of a party that has to provide a Government. They deserve instead to be in permanent opposition, whiter than white, pure in word, thought and deed, but impotent and powerless, because that is exactly what they and this party are heading for with the kind of speeches being made throughout the country [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] While they are tut-tutting they should remember, if they are democrats in the truest sense of the words, that last Wednesday morning our party meeting adopted the White


Paper and the Bill by a ratio of five votes to one.

Mr. Mikardo: In the same way as they voted to retain the east of Suez policy six months ago.

Mr. Lomas: I am not replying to that interruption made while my hon. Friend was sitting down, and that was entirely different.

Mr. John Lee: Several hon. Members opposite have mentioned that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised that each of the two preceeding Prices and Incomes Act was to be the last. No doubt we are being told that this Bill is also to be the last. If we ever have another, will my hon. Friend undertake to abstain along with us?

Mr. Lomas: That has nothing to do with what I am saying. I reminded my hon. Friends that we had an argument in our own party and reached a decision by a ratio of five votes to one in favour of the Bill and the White Paper.
As I see it, the choice before us is simple. Either we decide to cling to an outdated system, which I think is rotten and bad, with free bargaining and all the rest, or we try to replan it. Either we decide to go along, and be grateful for the crumbs dropping from the top table and hoping for the best, or we decide to make a better kind of society. But we must make sure that the base is firm first.
Let us recognise that no Government can change society overnight. We cannot in 10, 15, 20 or 25 years wipe out 200 years of capitalism or get rid of the remnants of an imperial past. But it should be recognised, certainly on this side of the House, that we are moving in the right direction. I believe that the Bill takes us a step nearer the day when we can really get down to building the kind of Socialist society we want. I believe that by supporting the Bill we shall earn the gratitude and thanks of future generations who will thank God that there was a Government in 1968 with the will, determination and guts to do something for Britain and its people and for future generations.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It is a particular pleasure to

follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) because he and I on occasions get each other's letters. Our names are similar. It does not appear that any circulars he has had from Conservative Central Office have had any effect upon him. I assure him that any circulars I have inadvertently seen from Transport House have had no effect upon me.
As I listened to the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I became more and more concerned about my view on prices and incomes. I have always believed and said that if one is seeking a growth policy, whichever party is in office, there will be a time, assuming that the growth is going well, when one may have to call a halt and say to the country, "Wages have increased over a period of four years or so, and we must have a stop to make sure that the economy does not overheat and to avoid getting into balance of payments difficulties".
This is justified as a temporary measure and as an expedient. It does not mean —and to me it is not acceptable—that it should be a permanent part of our economic planning. At the conclusion of her speech the right hon. Lady made it clear that she envisaged not a voluntary incomes policy, but a fairly permanent statutory incomes policy. I was even more depressed when I heard the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) say the same thing. Going back to 1966, he and I have been involved in this matter on all night sittings upstairs. He was the originator of the prices and incomes policy. At the beginning he always said he wished to secure the policy on a voluntary basis. In fairness to him, he tried very hard to get it on a voluntary basis and he reluctantly brought in the statutory impositions. But today he seemed to make it clear that he was now convinced that it was necessary to include the statutory Measures permanently. The Government also appear to have got into a position where they accept this statutory policy as being continuous. I had always hoped that if we had a statutory policy for a limited time, eventually we would get a voluntary policy; that the trade unions would see sense and accept there was a need for a certain amount of restraint.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made, according to his lights, a very good speech, although I did not agree with it. He indicated that the line he took on the Bill was not because he agreed with our policy in any way. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would immediately assent to that in reverse. The hon. Gentleman not only wants wages to continue rising without any control; he wants Government expenditure to go on rising alongside it. He wants increases in the social services to go on without let or hindrance. These two matters taken together—the rises in wages and the rises in Government expendituree—have been the very things which have got the Government into their present trouble. To a considerable extent this has been the cause of the overheating of the economy by previous Governments, and this is the reason why the country is now in a position where it is living on borrowed money—we do not know how much—and is faced with the prospect of a second devaluation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech upstairs—I was not there so I cannot prove his words or otherwise, but these words were obviously leaked to the Press—let the cat out of the bag when he said that the country faced a choice between an incomes policy or more swingeing taxes and deflation. He did not say anything about cutting Government expenditure. He apparently said, "If this policy does not work, we add to the £920 million imposed in taxation at the last Budget and we deflate". He assumed that we might have to increase the unemployment pool from the present 500 to 600,000 up to 1 million or 1½ million. This is what the Chancellor said to the Labour Party upstairs.
Foreigners will not back a horse if the jockey is overweight and if the horse is overfed. This is the position with economy. The basic trouble with the Government and their incomes policy is that it has gone on too long and started too late.
Some of my hon. Friends say that the incomes policy has not worked. In 1964 wages went up about 10 per cent. Nevertheless, since we have had an incomes policy they have not gone up so much. I imagine that had we no form of incomes policy at the present time we would find

that the increase which took place up to March this year of 1½ per cent, in wages would have gone considerably beyond that. That 7½ per cent, included, according to a report which has just been published by the Prices and Incomes Board, a wage drift content of about 4 per cent. The trouble that all Governments are in when looking at this problem is how to deal with wage drift.
Some rude words have been uttered this afternoon about productivity. Certainly it has become an incantation with Ministers, and it is very much in the mind of the right hon. Lady, for she seeks to publicise it as something which will solve all our problems.
Productivity deals are often spurious. Often a firm that has a realistic productivity deal arising from good management pulls in the best workers. The weak managements round about, because they are losing their workers, push up their wages under a spurious deal to pull back the workers they have lost to the company that is well managed. With some limited activity on the part of the Government, and with considerably improved management, we may in the long run be able to improve productivity unit costs and at the same time get a rising wage scale.
But what has not come from the Government Front Bench sufficiently is that we are not dealing with the long run but with the short run. The right hon. Lady's plans are long-term ones and in the short term this country is in a serious economic situation because of Government policies. Because of this and in so far as the foreigner, from whom we borrow so much money, believes that we must hold the line in wage rises in the short run, I am certain we must do so. Therefore, I would support a good deal, although not all, of the Bill. It seems to me vital, in the country's interest, if we are not to fail—both parties are concerned here—and have a situation similar to that of 1931 that we make every effort to hold the line on incomes.
I am disappointed that the trade unions have failed to impress this on their members and get them to accept it. I have never understood why, when people have received wage and salary rises year after year, they cannot, at least for a limited period, accept a standstill. Even with a measure of rising prices, it would not be


too great a hardship, certainly not in a country which, under both Governments, has spent a good deal on social services which have cushioned people against many of the personal economic difficulties which they had to suffer before the war.
Therefore, on balance, I think this incomes policy is necessary at this time, but there is a great danger in right hon. Members opposite looking upon it as a permanent feature. I shall not vote for the Bill because it is not right to support a Government who want it to be permanent. Anyway, I do not see why I should assist a Government when many of their own supporters are going to assist them. In the long run, the Government will be judged by their broad economic policies, and on these they are basically wrong. It is because of this that they are now, unhappily, for the third successive time, introducing a Bill of this sort.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Before coming to the Bill, I want to make one observation—probably my only one— which, I think, will carry the support of back-benchers on both sides, even including those whose views on the Bill differ radically from my own. That is, it must be a subject of regret to backbenchers that the only alternative open to them tonight when they vote is blindly to support one Front Bench or the other. Of course we all appreciate that it is right and essential that the Chair should have an unfettered discretion about whether to call any given Amendments, but it is a matter for regret, by backbenchers on both sides, if we are to drift into permanent acceptance of a situation in which no Amendment on Second Reading of a major Bill, other than the official Opposition Amendment, is ever called.
It is because my hon. Friends and I who have subscribed to the Amendment in my name cannot record a vote for it that it is possible for the sort of misconception to arise which was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), which enabled him to say, without a shred of justification, that those who support me in this Amendment are taking the same views about the substance, causes and background of the Bill

as the right hon. Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It is because one is allowed by the procedure which has grown up to dissent only in one way and never in another that the mischievous sort of thing which my right hon. Friend said can possibly be said.
I agree completely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity that, whoever may have the right to criticise her policy and this Bill, it is not right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. If there is anything which, in the classic phrase, is enough to make a cat laugh, it is the sight and sound of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite posing as the friends and champions of the workers and the unions. That really is a bit too funny to tolerate. When we were being told from the Opposition benches that the worker and his unions must look there for their support in future, I wished that the argument could be reinforced by the sudden entry of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) with a nurse on either side of him, so as to remind us what he did about nurses' pay and what was the wages policy which he and successive Conservative Ministers carried out.
I turn now to the argument of my right hon. Friend—and of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas)—that devaluation—I took her words down exactly—" has enabled us to turn our backs on deflationary policies "I do not know how my right hon. Friend thinks that she can get away with kidding the House that what we have in devaluation is an alternative to deflation. How she can expect to kid us that we have not got deflation as well as devaluation, I do not know. What are our familiar unemployed except the first evidence— incidentally, the first cause—of a deflationary situation?
As we have heard, the Chancellor has taken £900 million of purchasing power from the community in the Budget. Is that anything but deflationary? He told us that we were to have a cut in our standard of consumer spending power. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper said, that, of course, is deflationary as well. I would remind the House that some of the meanest actions of the Government in recent


months have been justified by them not on the grounds that they contained merit —they have been admitted by the Government to be regrettable—but on the grounds that, regrettable, unpopular, unpleasant and unfair though they were, they were essential to give a deflationary impetus.
They said that about the increased contribution for the weekly stamp, about prescription charges, unpleasant, but needed for inflationary purposes. They said it about the withdrawal of school milk, and additional charges on school meals—necessary, unpopular, unpleasant, but we need it for deflationary purposes. That is at least a coherent principle. In the name of heaven, how, after all that, can my right hon. Friend come here and tell us that we have used devaluation as a substitute for deflation?
She went on to justify this on quite different grounds, against the background of the Government having achieved— and again I took down her words—" a major industrial transformation". I notice that in the last few days she has had an excess of modesty. In an article she wrote last week, published at the weekend, following very much the lines of her speech today, she talked about a major industrial reconstruction, which is much stronger, forceful, widespread, comprehensive and meaningful than "transformation". She has back-tracked a bit in the last few days.
Have we had, are we having, a major industrial transformation? The Government have done some useful things, on narrow fronts, by way of rationalisation and integration. I give them full credit for it. Within their limits they are very valuable. This is not a transformation of the whole of our industrial scene, much less a reconstruction. This amounts to no more than putting patches on the largest and most obvious, and the most easily repairable leaks. Are we to look upon what happened in the G.E.C.-A.E.I. merger as a piece of industrial transformation? Are we to stand up and cheer about it? Are we supposed to cheer about the shut-down, without warning, of that large factory in Woolwich, with thousands of skilled workers turned out, into either unskilled work or no work at all, with useful machinery sent to the scrap heap, with many middle-aged tech-

nicians who will never find work again, turned out?
A whole community has been dislocated leaving the taxpayer to bear the social cost of that dislocation, while the shareholders in General Electric get the extra profits of the merger. Is this what my right hon. Friend is asking me to stand up and cheer about? Is this the sort of Socialist planning that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West was asking us to accept as a justification for this Bill? Am I supposed to stand up and cheer about the industrial transformation which will come about as a result of the Government providing hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money in bribes to induce entrepreneurs to provide employment in the development areas, as a result of which there are dozens of advance factories there still standing empty?
When my hon. Friend says that we must plan wages and have a planned economy, is this the sort of planning that I am supposed to accept? Is that the price which I have to consider as being worth while for the penalties imposed by this Bill? No, that is not enough to buy my vote anyway.
One question which has been referred to many hon. Members is the contribution which this Bill can or cannot make towards an increase in productivity. With the exception of a lonely voice from Oswestry, all those in the House who have referred to this have agreed, and I agree too, that it is desirable, indeed essential, that productivity in British industry should be improved.
With the exception of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), I would think that all of us would approve of productivity bargains—perhaps he does too—when they are genuine productivity bargains. I have organised and negotiated some, the earlier ones more than 30 years ago, before my right hon. Friend had ever thought about productivity, maybe before she had ever heard of it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) who, coming from the factory floor as he does, giggled like fury, and was entitled to giggle, at all these theoreticians who have suddenly discovered productivity, suddenly found this magic wand lying in their Ministerial knapsacks. Blokes who work in the


factory have known this for years. Of course, we want it, but I agree very much with my light hon. Friend the Member for Belper when he said that, whether we want it or not, we cannot get it unless we create the right industrial climate for it.
We have not got that climate and will not get it unless we have full employment. The greatest barrier to increased productivity and the removal of restrictive practices is the dole queue. Nothing so reduces the desire of workers to cooperate in increased productivity measures as a level of avoidable unemployment. We will not get real team effort on productivity unless there is much more democracy in industry. So long as productivity deals work out in a way in which benefits deriving from them are allocated by the unilateral decision of management, we will not get workers playing a game in which the rules are rigged against them.
It is as simple as that. I want to tell my right hon. Friend that all her exhortations, and those of her right hon. Friends —and they have been many good and strong, directed at management, to take workers more into their confidence—have had, and are having precious little effect. Even the publicly-owned British Steel Corporation is still carrying on the traditions of the former steel-masters in refusing to recognise staff unions, and in paying funds into an anti-trade union body. That is how much effect there is in all the exhortations to these bodies to get some movement towards industrial democracy.
There is far too much resentment in the factories at the present time to provide a fair wind for an excursion on a big national scale into productivity. There is resentment about the regressive poll tax and the increasing cost of the weekly stamp. There is resentment about rising prices—prices have risen and the workers' wives tell them that prices have risen. They ask for more housekeeping money and the husband says, "You cannot have more housekeeping money, I have no more wages, my wages have kept down, and anyway, you should not need it; the Government say that prices are not going up". The old woman says, "You go out and do the shopping, or

maybe get one of your Ministers to go and do the shopping for you ".
There is resentment in the factory about prescription charges. There is resentment in the factory about the Stock Exchange boom. There was fury in the factories about the idiotic decision, now happily reversed, on the three waiting days. There is great resentment in the factories among women workers, and among their male workmates, at the fact that they, unlike my hon. Friend the First Secretary, do not get the rate for the job, and do not appear to be making any progress towards getting the rate for the job.
I share the phophecy made by hon. Members on both sides that the Government tonight will get their Bill, but a combination of two factors, the speeches which have been made today and the fact that their majority in the Lobby will be less than half their nominal majority, will ensure that, although they will get their Bill, they will not have the authority to implement its penal provisions. If they are using their power to carry through a Bill knowing that they will not be able to implement it, I am afraid the only possible conclusion is that one must sadly accept the views of those who today have said that this is largely a public relations exercise, and not much more. On these grounds the Government will be lacking my support in the Lobby tonight.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. John Page: The 21st May will be remembered for a long time in political history as the day of the start of the disintegration of the Labour Party; the day when a Labour Government first declared all-out war on the trade unions; the day when the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) showed that he had lost faith in the free working of a mixed economy, and came to the conclusion that all the principles for which he had in the past been working had to be changed, and that compulsion was the only way to get the movement in the country that is needed.
It is capitulation by the Government to the ideals that they set themselves, the ideals of free bargaining and the ideals of Labour Government effective control of a mixed economy. For many


people in the country—and I speak objectively here—it will be quite a tragic occasion.
For historic reasons the Labour Party has been considered for years to be the mouthpiece of the trade unions, and for this reason the unions have devoted huge sums which they have collected to the support of the Labour Party, Labour constituency associations and Labour Members of Parliament. In the last General Election 134 hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were sponsored candidates of the trade unions, and in three out of the last four years over £1 million has been expended for party political purposes by the trade unions. It is a staggering figure; a quarter of a million pounds in affiliation fees, compared with approximately £40,000 which was collected from constituency parties.

Mr. James Hamilton: Mr. James Hamilton (Bothwell) rose—

Mr. Page: I will not give way because there are too many hon. Members who want to speak.

Mr. James Hamilton: Tell us what you got from British industry.

Mr. Page: This attack on the trade unions is not a case of the Government biting the hand that feeds them. It is as if they are committing their parents to the gas chamber for political reasons. Against every undertaking ever given by the Labour Party to the trade union movement—

Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Page: No, I will not—we find the position which was clearly explained by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in his speech about the institution of this new Ministry. I will not quote his words, but he said among other things, that this new Bill will put any trade union secretary into an impossible position. So it must.
Why, then, has this Bill been presented to the House? The first reason is that it is a public relations Measure to placate the gnomes and redeem the pledge given by the present Home Secretary at the time of devaluation. The second reason is that the present Chancellor thinks that, from an intellectually superior position, in

due course friendly noises can be made again to the trade unions and they will accept that it was necessary at the time but will not last for ever. I think that the third reason stood out clearly in the speech of the right hon. Lady today. She considers the Bill to be an exciting, important and altogether admirable step forward across the threshold of a totally socialist economy for the country.
This is long-term centralised planning from the traditionally neutral headquarters in St. James's Square. From there, she will be able to control wages, salaries, prices, dividends and, through taking power to have prices reduced, the profits made by all our commercial concerns. That is the totality of socialist control of our business life. As for the trade unions, though she likes to present herself in the guise of Joan of ARC, she is really Lucretia Borgia dressed as Joan of Arc.
The tragi-comedy of the debate was outlined by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). Speaking with considerable experience of negotiations and wage agreements, he said that the Bill has not a chance of working.
When the first Prices and Incomes Bill was produced, it was accepted with remarkable tranquility and co-operation. But that sort of legislation will not be accepted in that way any more. There are only six million out of a total of 24 million employed workpeople in the country who are covered by the "early warning" categories. Those are the 1961 figures, and the Ministry cannot improve on them. What is to happen to the other 18 million people who are not covered by any kind of "early warning" agreement? Clearly there will be agreements and hard negotiations between employers and employees to produce the best bargains which can be mutually reached, and those are the figures which will be paid. They will be dressed up with bonuses and so on to give an image of respectability, but since we have been told that every wage payment which does not conform to the White Paper criteria should be referred to the Minister, it makes an absurdity of the whole Bill. Everyone in the major part of. business, commerce and industry is a criteria-buster now.
There is no doubt that the whole of this Bill is anti-workman, anti-trade


union, anti-industrialist, anti-free-enterprise. It is a take-over bid to put in, instead of our present Parliamentary democracy, the rule of Socialist bureaucracy. I believe that it is doomed to failure and can only result in further measures of repression when the present measures come to an end. In 18 months, or whatever it is, a new Bill will be presented because, if this Bill has not been satisfactory in providing the means or reaching the end which the Government want, it will have to be extended. If it is successful, surely the result will be: let us reinforce success, let us have another Bill and continue on the same lines as we have been working on.
I do not believe—and many hon. Gentleman opposite have said this—that this Bill is acceptable to the ordinary man who works in business or industry in this country. As an example, I should like to read two extracts from a letter from a friend of mine who works in a factory which was closed down during the engineering strike last week.
He went to see what was going on at the factories that were closed, and he wrote:
At the first factory, I came across about a dozen pickets and they were unanimous in their opinion that the strike was against the ' Prices And Incomes Policy' rather than their employer.
Then, later on:
I spoke to no less than 43 people. 39 of these said that it was a protest against the Government, two said it was against the Masters Federation and two did not know.
It is not surprising that people do not know because this Bill, the White Paper and the present position are not understood by 99 per cent, of employers, trade union officials and employees in the industry as a whole.
Any hon. Gentleman opposite who believes in democracy and in trade unionism should oppose this Bill as suggested in the sincere and most eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) this afternoon, which many hon. Gentlemen opposite may have listened to. I will conclude by quoting from his speech last week as reported in the Sun:
If I had to choose between supporting the unions and the Government, I would refuse to vote for the Government. Frankly, I am more concerned about saving the party than saving the Government. Governments come and gov-

ernments go, but the party must go on. It is doubtful if it could survive without the unions, and we would then see the end of democracy in this country.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Frank Tomney: This debate so far has brought out what I consider to be the elements of a basic major change in the British constitution. I am only sorry, along with other hon. Gentlemen, that the Leader of the House thought fit to devote only one day to it. It is worthy of much more time than that. It is serious, in the sense that during the past 21 years we have had seven major crises in the British economy. No one can tell at this stage whether further crises will occur. There is every probability that they will.
What are the factors to prevent these crises from occurring? Why do we need a Bill of this character at this time? Why has the credibility of politicians and the Government fallen so low in the eyes of the public? The Prime Minister can be responsible for his own credibility and his own credulity; I am responsible for mine. I do not always believe what he says. When he said on 10th March, 1966, that he would not be a member of any Government which prescribed legislation for the control of wages, I did not believe him. But when he said upstairs to the trade union group a week ago that he could not say whether at the end of 18 months a new Bill would be necessary, I did believe him. What is implied here —and I had better face this—is permanent legislation.
What are the factors mitigating against Britain's economy and its recovery? We have listened today to several spurious speeches from the benches opposite in defence of trade unions and workers' democracy. One would not have thought that, during their period of office stretching over 13 years, they had not managed the economy in the way that they had which left the nation virtually bankrupt when we came to power. During this same period—and this is the vital thing which is wrong with the economy and industry—the unions and industry are not geared for the type of economic recovery necessary in the time wanted for this country to take its prior place among the productive nations. The conditions are not physically there in the time necessary.
What must we do to get out of this situation? The electors, in the main,


have the advantage of looking at "the goggle box" night by night. Some of the comments of political commentators —some well informed, some ill informed —are getting through. People are beginning to understand more and more what this matter is about. This is no longer the province of politicians, who differ in education, intellect and credibility. People are seeking solutions, and none is forthcoming.
If we are to believe a paper recently published in America, by the end of this century there will be only a few hundred large firms in Europe. This kind of thing poses a special problem for the economy of this country. But the immediate problem is the control of prices, incomes and wages. I agree with the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) that it is no good the Government trying to imply that prices will come down. If they do, the policy of devaluation will have failed. This is what it is designed to do—to take so much out of the economy and to make growth possible in other sectors in the hope that the accounts will balance in a reasonable time.
This is why, with the utmost difficulty, I shall have to make a decision tonight which will be personal to me. No one has been able to doubt my loyalty to the party on any issue. Tonight, I shall have to make a decision. I believe fundamentally that the voluntary policy of the T.U.C. has not been given an adequate opportunity to prove whether it can work. More time is wanted, and if we can find that time and it works, well and good. But if it does not, then the fundamental change envisaged in the Bill should be held over and the electors should be given the opportunity to decide whether they want this policy. It may be necessary to have it; I am not saying it is not. But at least on such a major constitutional change they should be consulted.

Mr. James Hamilton: I take it that my hon. Friend is very much in favour of the prices and incomes policy and that what he is obviously opposed to is the penal Clauses. Is he in favour of a free-for-all?

Mr. Tomney: No, I am not in favour of a free-for-all. A free-for-all always

means that the weakest go to the wall. I am against the penal Clauses. Let that be understood. I am against the extension of that policy and for the T.U.C. being given an effective chance of working, which it has not. If it fails then the nation has to face its future on this question, because it is a tremendous question which cannot be shelved, for what is involved in all this is the economic future of the country. Economists come and go. They have come under this Government in droves—and thank goodness some have gone, too. They have left behind them a catalogue of misjudgements and failures. Nobody has got it right, and until we make a cirtical analysis and diagnosis of what is really wrong with the situation we shall never get anywhere.
We seem to have been staggering about, with Government after Government, year after year, with policies which are not forward-looking, which do not match up to the situation and which in themselves will not provide any solution. If we take the policy of mergers, computerisation and industrialisation and the association of business which is bound to occur if the country is to live in the export markets with a resultant having in labour, and redundancies, and take into consideration the concept of normal trends in this country, one is driven to the conclusion that by the end of the century this country will be over-populated in terms of its resources to the extent of 15 million people. These are the problems at which we should be looking. We cannot avoid that and that is why this policy is causing me so much concern at this time.
I have been a union official, in one way or another, for the best part of 15 years and I know what is operating on the shop floor. I know what is activating men's minds. I know, too, how much loyalty this movement can command and that, whatever compromise we may arrive at in the future, some of the strictures we have heard from the benches opposite will have nothing at all to do with it; but we can compromise, given time. One thing which worries me in all this is that, while I can understand the feelings of outside economists who do not have access to the books, I do not know whether the advice of the Treasury advisers on policy is right on that policy or whether the time has arrived for the Treasury advisers to say to the Minister, "This may be your policy. We are asked


to give advice. This is contrary to the economic: facts confronting the country and therefore, despite the fact that you as the Government are responsible for policy, we as Treasury advisers consider that you should take another look at the problem and see if you cannot find another way round."
This situation is different from 1966 when the big "freeze" occurred and when there was union recognition of the gravity of the situation at that time. The unions went along with it at that time. At that time, prices were more stable than they are now. I calculate that there will be a price rise in consumer commodities this year of no less than 7 per cent. In this situation, if the policy goes through, there must be deflation and restriction and a fall in real wages.
My right hon. Friend the former Minister at the D.E.A. and Mr. George Woodcock of the T.U.C. conducted a dialogue about wages for two years, but even with their efforts at that time, each playing a responsible part, there was a general wage rise of no less than 7 per cent. My greatest fear is that compulsion of any kind feeds upon itself. If at the end of 18 months no real improvement in our balance of payments is to be registered, there will be a pent-up flood of wage claims waiting which somebody will have to satisfy, unless fresh legislation is immedately framed to put all those wage claims back or meet them only partially. It is at that juncture, 18 months from now, whoever is the Government, that the real crux of the problem will hit this nation. Make no mistake about that.
If it is intended then to mount rigid legal restrictions on the free collective bargaining power of unions and to adopt the system which the Dutch adopted after the war, I would ask the trade unions to look at the Dutch experiment and what happened to it. The Dutch have now abandoned it, but the biggest casualties of that system were the trade unions themselves, when trade unionists tore up their cards en masse. The prime function of trade unions is to enrich their members. That is what the contribution is paid for, and if it is not seen to be doing it, it is failing in its object.
One hon. Gentleman opposite said that there were 8 million workers in industry who were organised and in respect of whom national agreements were negoti-

ated and settled. There are about 24 million workers in industry who are unorganised, and there are some professional people organised in their own way and able to settle their salary scales by negotiation. I deplore it when people in workshops do not belong to unions but take advantage of national agreements to better themselves while at the same time refusing to join. But it must be remembered that in this country, in our changing technological society—we have heard those words bandied about a good deal in the past few years—there is a new class appearing, a class of people who can bargain for themselves on the basis of their qualifications. It is these movements and wage drift—there is a tremendous amount of wage drift in this country—which we cannot control.
I know of three teams of draughtsmen in London who do not work for British industry; they work for the Hamburg shipyards, and one of their number flies back and forth from Germany two or three times a week with plans. The whole concept of the white collar trade union is changing.
We have not got the wide sweep of wage drift organised. Bricklayers, plasterers and carpenters are no longer employed on a company or firm basis. They are tendering for so many doors, so many window frames or so many yards of brickwork. All this is producing wage drift in the economy. Hundreds of thousands of British people are now doing moonlight jobs, as they are called in America, doing two jobs, one after working hours. All this is putting a great weight on the economy which no one can really control. The Treasury cannot account for it because it is impossible to do so.
Our problem today is of such magnitude that at this juncture I prefer to lay claim to the good will which exists between the unions and the Government and to give the voluntary policy of the T.U.C. a considerable extension to enable it to work. I cannot understand my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), or my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), or my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who are hard-headed politicians, going along for an all-out fight between the trade unions and the Labour


Party. It is too late to ask them to think again, but I hope that permanent damage will not be done either to this party or to our great trade union movement by today's debate and the decisions that we will have to take in future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Mr. Anthony Barber.

Mr. Eric Moonman: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I seek your support in getting further time for back-benchers to take part in the debate, and in restraining Front Bench speakers? So far there have been nine speeches from this side of the House. Three have been by Privy Councillors and one from the Front Bench. However, attractive their speeches, that seems an extraordinary number, and I should be grateful for your advice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Barber: Anyone who listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) will agree that we had from him a speech which was penetrating in its analysis, which did not burke the serious problems which we face, and which showed an understanding of the difficulties and hardships which face some of our people today. Those in the House —and there are a number of us—who worked with my hon. Friend before he came here know that he will be an asset, not only to the Conservative Party, but to the whole House.
My hon. Friend talked about the effect of the Bill, coupled with the increase in indirect taxation, on the standard of living. Therefore, I think that it needs to be said quite clearly at the outset of these final speeches—and, like the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman), I regret that we have not been allowed two days to discuss the Bill—that the overriding purpose of this Measure, brought in by a Socialist Government, can be simply stated. It is to ensure that wages rise less than the increase in prices, and so, as a deliberate act of Socialist policy, to ensure that this year, after three and a half years of Labour Government, the standard of living of

the British working man will fall. That is the purpose of the Bill.
If I might express it in the harsh, and perhaps rather unemotional, terms of the professional economist, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Lady —[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is she?"]— are planning that this year average personal disposable incomes shall rise less than the increase in the Retail Price Index. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) told us that Ministers should not talk about our standard of living falling, but never since 1951, the last year of the last Labour Government, 17 years ago, has a Government actually set out to cut the nation's standard of living, and then right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite wonder why the electorate rejects them.
Now that the right hon. Lady has come into the Chamber, let me give one example to show why nobody any more has any confidence in the Government. Less than a year ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the nation:
During the next 12 months there will be a gentle but progressive improvement in the standard of life of every family in the country. From now on we can begin to reap the benefits.
That was never denied by the right hon. Lady or by anybody else in the Labour Party in the House of Commons. The truth is that the Bill is a confession of failure. It enshrines a principle which the Prime Minister has called repugnant. As I shall show, it is in practice a nonsense which has been cooked up by political theorists and naive bureaucrats.
The right hon. Lady said that the Conservative Government held down wages. She produced no figures. She did not compare what happened in our 13 years of office with what has been happening under the present Government. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will comment on my figures. From 1951 to 1964, the average annual increase in real weekly earnings was 35 per cent. Under this Government the figure has been 1 per cent. In this, the fourth year of the Government's office, they are setting out quite deliberately, for the first time since 1951, to reduce the standard of living of our people.
The right hon. Lady started by referring to what she considered to be the


reasons which have led to the Bill. I want to do the same. We are entitled to ask how it comes about that, despite all the roseate promises made at the General Election two years ago, and all that has been said since until quite recently, we are now faced with the prospect of a falling standard of living and with legislation for the third year running to prevent employees receiving what their employers are prepared to pay them as a result of free bargaining.
I believe that the answer is twofold. In the first place, between 1964 and 1967 public expenditure in constant terms rose by 15 per cent. whereas the gross domestic product rose by only 6 per cent. The consequence, which was predictable and was predicted time and again by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, is that this enormous and disproportionate growth for mainly nonproductive purposes has stifled the private sector of the economy which is the main source of our prosperity. Even this year, when we are still in real trouble, the Government's spending spree goes on at an even greater pace.
When he took office at the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that at long last there was going to be the most comprehensive review ever undertaken of the whole field of Government expenditure. That is what we were promised. Then in February were were told the outcome. The Vote on Account, which the Government themselves describe as the most important single statement of expenditure proposals made to Parliament, showed that the Chancellor was setting out this year, 1968-69, to increase the estimates of Government expenditure by £1,000 million.
No Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever been in a stronger position than the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister would never have dared to replace him only a few weeks after his appointment. Yet, as many of us feared and others in the country predicted, he has proved as weak as his predecessor. The result is that Government expenditure now equals about one-third of the entire output of the nation. The right hon. Gentleman has adopted the classic remedy for stimulating inflation, because any increase in the Government's share of total national output can only be financed by higher taxation or by in-

flation. So we had the mammoth budget in March, increasing taxation by £900 million a year.
I did not quite understand what the right hon. Lady was getting at today when she told an incredulous House that last November the Government devalued instead of deflating. What does she mean? Does she really think that hon. Members opposite are so stupid that they really think that, over the last few months, there has been no deflation? Or is it that she has not got a clue about the way in which the economy is developing? If the right hon. Lady does not understand now that we have suffered over the last few months the most massive deflation this country has known, she is not fitted to hold her present office.
As every economist was predicting, even that increase in taxation was not enough to counter the weight of increased Government expenditure in an economy which had been virtually stagnant for three years. It is worth recalling that the proportion of the G.N.P.—of all we produce in this country—taken by total taxation has risen from 32·3 per cent. in 1964 to 34·4 per cent. in 1965, to 36·3 per cent. in 1966, to 38·1 per cent. in 1967, and that this year it will be about 40 per cent. This is one of the reasons why there is no incentive; why people are not prepared to give of their best—something which is necessary if we are to get the economy thriving.
And so the Government, having taken the very course which was best calculated to breed inflation, faced with a 1967 trading deficit which was the largest since Mr. Gaitskell's in 1951—the right hon. Lady omitted to mention this when speaking about the balance of payments—and having taxed industry and the citizen to the hilt, he resorted to the inevitable solution of a Socialist Government; the holding down of money wages and the reduction of real wages by penal legislation.

Mr. James Tinn: Would the right hon. Gentleman concede that the increases are largely due to the fact that we are spending nearly half as much again on housebuilding, hospital building, education and social security? These may be non-productive activities, but there is a backlog in all of these spheres which the Conservative Party left behind.

Mr. Barber: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede that the increase in civil servants since the Labour Party came to office is greater than, for example, the total of all our troops in the Far East and the Persian Gulf, which the Government are intending to bring home. I hope that he will concede that if the Government had changed over to the policy of import levies, we would then be able to save £250 million a year in public expenditure. I hope that he will concede that we would save a very large sum of money if we were to give up the Transport Bill, the Land Commission and the Industrial Expansion Bill. It is absolute nonsense to pretend that one cannot cut Government expenditure without touching the sort of social services to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
But this is what the Chancellor has done. He has taken a decision, with the right hon. Lady and the Prime Minister, to reduce real wages in Britain. It is ironic that this polished and elegant Socialist, the Chancellor of the Exchequer —[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]— who, as Home Secretary, was generally renowned for his permissive attitude to society, should now be the Minister who bears the main responsibility for denying the working man his historic right to receive what his employer wants to pay him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."]
The economic aims of any Government, Labour of Conservative, are four: economic growth, price stability, full employment and a satisfactory balance of payments. It is, of course, common ground that these objectives are easier to attain if the rise in incomes does not outstrip the rise in output. That is to state the obvious. This is why any Government must at least form a view as to what is the tolerable rise in incomes compatible with their objectives.
The trend of incomes is one of the primary factors which determine the whole of the Budget strategy. In short, the aim of Government in the pursuit of an acceptable incomes policy should be, by their overall management of the economy, to create conditions under which the rise in incomes is broadly in line with the rise in output. But this is a function of the overall management of the economy—of total economic policy, of taxation policy, of the control of Government expenditure, of policies to stimulate personal saving

and of policies to encourage initiative and enterprise so as to lead to the efficient growth of our total resources.
I hope the right hon. Lady will note this, for she was not here to hear all the speeches. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), with whom I agree on this point, said that the folly of this Government was that it had elevated incomes policy to a position where it is now the central theme of economic policy. It was clear, listening to the right hon. Lady, that, like all fanatics, she is now redoubling her efforts when she has lost sight of her aim. It is highly dangerous to stake everything on the success of the statutory control of incomes because this legislation is no more likely to succeed than the previous two Acts which were pushed through the House of Commons.
One of the primary purposes of this Bill is to hold down wages by law. I think it right that in this context we should consider what I believe to be one of the most discreditable and sordid political episodes of recent years. That is the way in which the nation has been deceived.
I hope the right hon. Lady will not laugh at the quotations I shall now make. Her right hon. Friend the Member for Belper said in his speech that we should talk in honest terms. I noticed this afternoon that when one or two of my hon. Friends referred to what the Prime Minister said in his election speeches there was a certain amount of laughter on the benches opposite as though hon. Members opposite were prepared to dismiss what the right hon. Gentleman had said as of no relevance or importance. Of course, if hon. and right hon. Members opposite mean that it is a waste of time because no one any more anywhere believes a word the Prime Minister says, they are right, but the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I have plenty of time and I am going to finish.

Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman goes on in this way he will force me to vote for the Government.

Mr. Barber: I shall refer to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well) in a few minutes. The fact is that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) is still Prime Minister of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Only


just."] This is very important because it is something which is of great significance to people outside this House. If hon. Members opposite go on tittering and laughing at broken pledges given at the last election they will suffer an even heavier defeat at the next one. [An HON. MEMBER: "We are laughing at the right hon. Gentleman."]
I gave the Prime Minister notice that I would refer to this. Last week the Prime Minister attended a private meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party and made a speech which he gave to the Press. He appealed for unity and referred to what he called "the sophisticated enemies" of the Labour movement. He said that these
sophisticated enemies are insisting that we change our nature as a party.
I must say, that takes the cake. He went on:
We are adjured to forget our past, to forget the aims and ideals which have inspired this party.
Let me help the right hon. Gentleman and the Front Bench opposite—indeed, the whole House—not to forget either the past or the aims or ideals which have inspired the Labour Party. It was the same right hon. Gentleman who told the nation at the last election that a law prescribing wages would be "repugnant to all parties". I wonder, was he then mouthing what he now calls
the aims and ideals which have inspired the Labour Party
or was he conning the electorate? We are entitled to know. We have never heard from him why he has changed his mind, why he said what he said at the last General Election, when, because he was Prime Minister, people believed what he said.
If he thinks that he has only to consider what he calls the "sophisticated enemies" of the Labour movement, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. I will tell hon. Members opposite who are the real enemies of the Labour Party. They are in Meriden, Walthamstow, Acton and Cambridge, and there are 28,000 of the enemy in Dudley and Stourbridge. They are the men and women who have already responded to the Prime Minister's plea not to forget the past, and they have done so because they are convinced that they have been tricked and cheated.
If the Prime Minister or anybody else wishes to be doubly assured that his erstwhile supporters do not forget the past and do not forget what he calls the aims and ideals which have inspired the Labour Party, he will get that reassurance in a few weeks' time from the people of Oldham, the trade unionists of Nelson and Colne and the steel workers of Sheffield, Brightside, because they know, as we know, and as the right hon. Gentleman once told the nation, that the statutory control of wages is the beginning of "a very slippery slope".
That is why we on these benches have consistently opposed the statutory control of wages. We voted against the compulsory powers under Part IV of the 1966 Act. We voted against the 1967 Act, and we shall fight this Bill, which is bad in principle and will not work.
The right hon. Lady said in her speech, "We must look forward first and foremost to management to carry out their responsibilities." Two of the main functions of the manager are the negotiation of wages and the determination of prices. These will now be undertaken by the Government, who will have the ultimate responsibility.
My hon. Friends the Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) and Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) both directed their attention to the effect the Bill will have on the trade union movement. One of the main functions, if not the main function, of the leaders of the trade union movement is the negotiation of wages. But from now on it will be the irresponsible leader, the unofficial leader, who will be stimulated to take the initiative.
But the right hon. Lady really believes in the Bill, because this is what she means when she talks about the "socialisation of the wages sector." Only a Government devoid of business experience would assume that the bureaucrat knows better than the manager and the trade union leader.
That brings me to the second objection to the Bill. To attempt to hold down wages by law is not only wrong in principle but is impracticable and inequitable. First, even when it becomes law, the employer who gives a 5 or 6 per cent. rise to his workers will have committed no offence of any kind. There will undoubtedly be


many who will ignore the right hon. Lady's threats and will do just that.
Second, any employee can ask for his cards and go to the factory next door, and he can get more pay for the same job.
Third, at the end of the period, even when the right hon. Lady brings an Order before the House, the employer is wholly within his rights in granting a lump sum payment to cover retrospectively the whole period covered by the order.
Judging the validity of productivity agreements in the way the right hon. Lady has suggested simply cannot work in practice, because she knows that the C.B.I. and many leading trade unionists are now becoming more and more in favour of plant bargaining. If she has her way, every productivity agreement providing for an increase of over 3½ per cent., even though it is limited to a handful of men in one small factory, will in future be liable to be vetted by a minor bureaucrat who has never been in a factory. [An. HON. MEMBER: "It is not true."] It is true. If it is not true, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with this point, because this is what employers outside believe.
What about the employer who desperately wants to fulfil an export order on time but is losing his men to better paid employment elsewhere? There is no question here of increased productivity, harder work or longer hours; to keep his men to fulfil his export commitment he needs to give them a 5 per cent. rise. The answer, as the right hon. Lady knows, is that the Bill says he cannot do that, because it would be against the national interest to pay his workers 5 per cent. more to keep them to fulfil his export commitment.
For the Government to take powers over wages and prices is a manifest nonsense. One right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the compulsion involved in the Bill is incompatible with a free society. The simple truth is that, in fixing prices or in settling the multifarious wage claims throughout industry and commerce, the Government have neither the knowledge or the competence, nor the effective responsibility, and it is absurd to pretend otherwise.
The right hon. Lady said that, for her hon. Friends, this Bill represents a great

issue of principle. She was right. The Government now have an overall majority in the House of Commons of 70, and 44 Labour Members of Parliament have put their names to an Amendment rejecting the Bill. If those hon. Members lived up to their convictions the Bill would be defeated. But, of course, they will do no such thing. As the right hon. Member for Easington said, "pressure has been exerted". It is now taken for granted that those hon. Members who have declared their opposition to the Bill will not in fact oppose it. I understand their difficulties and their feelings. But if they let the Bill through, as they will tonight, they really must not be surprised if people outside this House are cynical of politics and of politicians.
After all, here is a Measure which 44 Labour Members of Parliament detest and believe to be wrong. It is a Measure which breaks a solemn undertaking given by the Prime Minister during the last election campaign. But still they cling to their seats and still they prop up a Government which is discredited, distrusted and despised.
The right hon. Member for Easington made a remarkable speech in which he said that the Government no longer take any notice of their supporters. Last week, on television, he said to eight million viewers:
… if the Government go ahead with this so-called prices and incomes policy which is so demonstrably unfair—which puts most of the burden on organised working class people and on the organised professional middle class— then we won't make devaluation or anything else work; we will simply wreck this Government and the Labour Movement.
For right hon. Gentlemen opposite it is enough to live for the day; but on the morrow the nation will reject them.

9.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I begin by offering my sincere congratulations to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) on what was a truly excellent maiden speech. I disagreed with every word of it, including his analysis of the fortunes of the English football team, but it was an excellent speech. Perhaps I may be allowed to add to my congratulations the thanks of Christopher Rowland's many friends in the House for the many generous tributes


—justified, but nevertheless generous— which the hon. Member paid to him today and in his election campaign. It is some consolation to us to realise that Christopher Rowland has been succeeded in this House by a Member of such high quality.
I now turn to the speech of the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), a speech which was clearly intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator on the benches behind him. Anyone who can face reading it in HANSARD tomorrow will find every political cliché in the book in the 27 minutes that he spoke. Even by the time that he got to the Bill, at 9.25, he was still in the same—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have heard one winding-up speech. I must insist that we hear the other.

Mr. Hattersley: Even by the time that he addressed himself to the Bill, at 9.25, he was still dealing with it in the same superficial and flippant way which characterised the rest of his speech.
However, there have been serious speeches during the afternoon, not least that from the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). He made a number of points which need comment and refutation right at the beginning of my speech. He said, for instance, in exactly these words, "In 1967, it was going to be for only one further year," making the point, a charge which has been repeated in the country and in the House—a charge which, were it true, would be admittedly grave—that, by bringing this Bill forward at all, the Government have somehow broken their promises to the House, to the Labour Party and to the country— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen who say, "Hear, hear," should read HANSARD for 13th June, 1967, and devote their attentions to col. 429. There they will see that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who is not noted for giving gratuitous compliments to his opponents, referring to the then First Secretary, said:
We have been given no undertaking whatever by the First Secretary. He has been absolutely frank with us, and I acknowledge it. It may be that Part II will come back in its original form … ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 429.]
Very largely, Part II is back in its original form, and to suggest that this

is somehow a breach of faith, of promises given and undertakings made, a year ago is absolutely and completely wrong.
Having referred to what was the truth about a year ago, let me now turn to what may well be the truth about a year or 18 months hence—

Mr. R. Carr: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of a year ago, would he confirm that, almost two years ago, a very firm promise was given that these powers would last for one year and that, last year, although the promise was less firm, the indication was pretty strong?

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Member for Enfield, West did not regard the implication as pretty strong, and if the right hon. Member for Mitcham refers to col. 430 as well, he will find that his right hon. Friend went on to say that, in his view, not only the First Secretary but the Prime Minister had made provision for the powers now being re-enacted.
I turn from last year to next year and to the specific question asked of me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown). He asked whether we would consider the reintroduction of the expiring laws procedure and the possibility of the Bill existing in some permanent form. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) went further and prophesied that our answer would be "Yes", and that the Bill would be here to stay in its present and total form.
I have to say this to my right hon. Friend. I regret that the assurance for which he asked cannot be given. I regret that there cannot be reconsideration of the introduction into this Bill of powers which would enable us to reactivate it in that way. I have to say this to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford. I can give him and the House no promises that another Bill of this sort will not be placed before them in a year or 18 months' time. If the problem still exists, the Government must apply the remedies which they regard as being necessary.
Certainly, however, if that eventuality does prove necessary, we would submit the Bill to the normal Parliamentary processes. But as to how likely it is that that should come about, I would say to


my right hon. Friend that our wish to retain the statutory powers reinforcing the necessary prices and incomes policy is no greater than the needs of the situation. For my part, a statutorily-backed prices and incomes policy is not an article of faith. It is simply an imperative necessity until the time that the voluntary policy is demonstrably working. If the T.U.C. forecasts for the economy are right, if it should turn out that the T.U.C. policy is working effectively, positively, and demonstrably, in a year's time, there is no dogma on this Front Bench which would lead us to suggest to the House that this policy should be implemented.
We ask for that now because we believe it to be an imperative necessity in terms of economic success and survival. That imperative economic necessity includes prices as well as incomes. Prices policy is not—emphatically not—sugar to sweeten the pill. Of course some prices will rise. We have always said that. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is one of the few Chancellors in British history who has made a prediction about price rises in his Budget.
We have never suggested that the results of devaluation, of his fiscal policies, can do anything other than produce price rises. Our general overall estimate is 5 per cent. That is not an argument for not trying to limit the amount of unnecessary price increases in other areas. It is the strongest argument for doing something about unnecessary price increases; it is the strongest argument for the sort of positive prices policy that this Bill offers; the strongest argument for the powers in the Bill, which my hon. Friends will recall contain for the first time the opportunity for the Government to require price reductions, as well as price stabilisation.
I emphasise that these powers have economic as well as social purposes. For reasons of simple equity there can, during the hard days ahead, be no unnecessary or unwarrantable price increases. As well as the equity argument, there is the hard economic argument, the argument that the most pressing need of the country is import substitution, the argument that perhaps overall, what we need to do most urgently and promptly is to sell goods in Britain made in Britain, instead

of selling goods in Britain made abroad. Our prices strategy is not only to ensure that British goods are more competitive on the continent of Europe and America, but also to make certain that they are more competitive at home. And this is the essential task of import substitution.
One of the difficulties of arguing the effects and necessities of price policy is the strange intellectual double standards that the opponents of prices policy operate. Only the most bizarre of them actually claim that the economy should be left to the invisible hand of perfect competition. Many much more reputable and sophisticated figures advance arguments that can be justified only by the acceptance of the belief that enterprise and the hidden hand of competition can somehow see us through.
It would be very convenient and easy if competition could do these jobs, if it worked like that. It would answer all our questions, most of them before we even asked them, but unfortunately it does not work like that. Market forces have not brought down the prices of those hundreds of goods which have been notified to my right hon. Friend according to the early warning, or constant-watch procedure, and have then had their prices limited, postponed or abandoned altogether, because of Government intervention.
The hand of perfect competition has done none of these things. But the Government have done them, and we are entitled to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite who have talked about the distortion of market forces and letting normal forces operate, which alternative would they choose for the nation? If they had to choose between not distorting market forces, or, by intervening, keeping down the price of bread, flour, biscuits, beer, which would they choose? Do they stand by the theory of competition, or the Government's policy of positive intervention which has positively served the Government's policy? Hon. Gentlemen opposite have never even tried to answer that question, but they have in rather more frank moments answered the alternative question, as to whether or not they might themselves in certain circumstances have an incomes policy. The right hon. Member for Mitcham, speaking from the opposite Front Bench on 13th June, said


that his. party realised that it is possible and it might be necessary, however unpleasant, for a Government in a moment of crisis to clamp down for a short period a complete standstill on incomes. He did not confess that attitude to us this afternoon. Had he done so I would have reminded him now that we are advocating a much more positive alternative than the one to which he referred last year.
We are advocating a policy which is creative, which offers special benefits and special advantages to the economy and to the working man, and is to the general benefit and well-being of the nation. Let me explain why I believe that to be so.
There are two conceivable aims and objects of the policy. One is the maximum objective, the maximum objective which is achievable and which is being achieved. That is a radical improvement and a radical change in the very basis of wage negotiations. The old method of across-the-board increases, unrelated to the needs of the economy, unrelated to the needs of the industry, often failed even to meet the needs of the workers. In the short run it failed them because it did little for the lowest paid. In the long run it failed them because it created in itself the inflation that nullified their wage increases.
The new kind of productivity bargain offers genuine real money increases, it safeguards the economy and it produces genuine prosperity. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that it has an important, indeed, in my view, a fundamental subsidiary advantage, and that is that the productivity bargain offers the worker and his trade union not only the opportunity, but indeed the obligation, to comment on the way in which his work is organised. It offers the worker the opportunity to say, "We can do this more efficiently if you take our advice." I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar that this is at least the beginning of worker participation.
The potential increases that the worker can obtain under the Bill and under the White Paper associated with the Bill are unlimited. For the worker who chooses to negotiate through a productivity procedure by genuinely established criteria according to Reports nos. 23 and 36 of the National Board for Prices and In-

comes, the increases are outside the scope of the 3½ per cent. ceiling. There is no limit to the increase he may achieve.

Mr. Atkinson: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, would he not agree that the negotiators involved in the current A.E.U. wage negotiations would find it very difficult indeed to negotiate nationally a productivity agreement for the engineering industry, which is predominantly a piece-work industry which works to various standards throughout the industry? Will they not, because of the variation in techniques, find it almost impossible to negotiate a productivity agreement of the kind that is now being described by my right hon. Friend? Would he not, therefore, agree that there is every likelihood that the agreement will be in conflict with the criteria?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course, I agree with the technicalities of that argument. What my hon. Friend must therefore realise, and what I hope the trade union already realises, is that in order to obtain the maximum benefit for their members they must concentrate more and more on negotiations at local plant level, where genuine productivity bargains can be arranged, and where genuine substantial agreements and substantial increases can be obtained. That is the answer to the problem that many unions are facing, the chance of negotiating not national but local productivity agreements. That is the maximum achievable aim of the policy.
The minimum aim is the minimum aim spelt out by the right hon. Member for Mitcham, who said that according to many authorities—he quoted the National Institute of Economic and Social Research—the basic and only achievement which this policy could bring about would be a postponement in the increase in wages of something like 1 per cent., or perhaps not even that. To postpone wage increases to the tune of 1 per cent. is to reduce effective demand by something approaching £100 million. If that was the only achievement of the policy, it would not be a minor one. If there is to be that sort of saving, certainly my right hon. and hon. Friends would choose it to come in this way rather than through a cut in domestic Government spending such as that advocated from the benches opposite. As I understand


it, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would prefer the saving to come in that way rather than through increases in taxation.

Mr. R. Carr: But the hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten that my point was that the Conservative Government achieved that sort of withholding of spending power which is important in the management of the economy without any of this paraphernalia and panoply of power and bureaucratic intervention.

Mr. Hattersley: Let us face the point fairly and squarely, because this is the difference between us. It is not so much a difference of policy as a difference of principle. We could achieve it if we cut our social expenditure by a degree which those of us on this side of the House would find totally unacceptable.
While I am dealing with the problem and with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of it, let me ask him another question. When he quoted the first and rather gloomy prognosis of the National Institute of Economic Research in its analysis of incomes policy and its success or failure, why did he not quote its conclusion, which was that we should go on with incomes policy and that it was essential to do so? It is doing the House less than justice to quote the analysis but not to complete the quotation.
I return to productivity agreements, and I remind the House of the statutory situation which dominates the productivity agreement element of the Bill. The statutory postponement of any wage increase covered by the Bill must be linked to and associated with a reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. An extension of the postponement and an extension of the order that makes the postponement is only possible if the National Board for Prices and Incomes makes an adverse report. The criteria on which that report, adverse or not, must be based are laid down at any time by the Government's prices and incomes objectives, and the objectives laid down at the moment are those in Cmnd. 3590, which specifies an exemption for productivity agreements. That amounts to a statutory assurance that any increase notified to the National Board for Prices and Incomes and associated with the stand-

still must, if it is a genuine productivity agreement, not only get a favourable report from the Board, but that favourable report must be translated in Government terms into permission for the increase to go ahead. In other words, not only must the productivity agreement be copper-bottomed but, if it is, the Government's assurance that the increase can go forward is also copper-bottomed and written into the Bill.
I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be saying that all the laudable objects of improved productivity, plant rather than national bargaining and a fundamental shift in the way that our wages are negotiated are common ground between us. They will be saying that the T.U.C. shares these aims with the Government, and they will ask why the T.U.C. should not be allowed to get on with it. I am afraid that there is a hard and unavoidable answer. The T.U.C. can give the Government and the nation no assurance that it can make its policy stick, and it can give no assurance that its vetting machinery can work. Indeed, it would not claim that that was a possibility, and certainly it would not aspire to claim that it was a certainty.
Anyone examining the report of the Conference of Union Executives in Croydon last year will examine not only the size of the majority in favour of the economic statement but also the nature of the opposition to it. He will see that both the size of the majority and the militancy of the opponents provide little assurance and confidence that the T.U.C.'s policy can be made to work. Until we are sure that it can be made to work, there needs to be statutory backing and, until it can be seen to be working, the Government intend that that statutory backing shall exist.
Some of my hon. and right hon. Friends took exception to the suggestion that they were apparently adopting the same line as more extreme hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in their criticism of this Bill. I say "apparently", because in my view the common ground is more apparent than real. I believe that the similarity may appear to be there, but it is not there. Indeed, I believe that the attitude they take, although profoundly mistaken, is in absolute distinction to the attitude of hon.


and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and certainly in absolute distinction to the more extreme elements who sit on those benches. My hon. Friends take their position because they believe they are protecting the interests of the trade unions and organised workers. I reiterate that I believe that their judgment is profoundly mistaken, but I have no doubt that that is the principle on which their judgment is based.
But the more extreme hon. Gentlemen opposite want free bargaining for quite different reasons. They want free bargaining between employers' associations and unions as the first step towards even freer bargaining between individual companies and individual working men. Whilst I acquit my hon. and right hon. Friends of any complicity in that sort of nonsense, I warn them that by taking the stand they take this evening they are, in effect, making the real interests of the trade unions—the power to organise genuine material increases for their members, the power to organise a genuine, practical incomes policy—much more difficult to realise than if their spokesmen and their supporters in this House faced and realised the actual situation with which we are now confronted. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] I believe—and I offer my hon. Friend this consolatory point despite his intervention—that only one thing divides me and him. All of us hope that in 18 months' time there will be a fully voluntary incomes policy run by the trade unions and the trade unions alone. My hon. Friend and I differ only in the belief that the achievement of that happy state must be preceded by 18th months of statutory prices and incomes policy. That is the area of our dispute, and that alone. I believe that it has to be statutorily backed for this simple reason. Clearly the incomes policy as it now stands, and as we have discussed it this evening, is basically a voluntary system. It cannot and will not work unless we have the overwhelming, general, voluntary support of the trade union movement. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: This House is a fair House. I demand for both sides the same hearing.

Mr. Hattersley: No such policy could possibly work were a majority of the

people for whom it has a relevance and a purpose to refuse to operate it, and we are dependent upon the general support, the general good will, the general co-operation of the unions whose wages we chose to back.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Mrs. Anne Kerr (Rochester and Chatham) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is apparently not giving way.

Mr. Hattersley: I believe that most trade unions and most trade union leaders will accept the realities of the situation.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Mrs. Anne Kerr rose—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will not give way, the hon. Lady must not keep interrupting.

Mr. Hattersley: I believe that most trade union leaders will choose to expand real incomes, will choose the genuinely long-term prosperous society, will choose the stable economy. I believe that the general secretary of the nation's third largest union who told his conference yesterday that were he a Member of the House he would be voting in favour of this Bill is not uncharacteristic of union leadership in general. I believe that the statutory powers are necessary not only because we need the general support and acceptance of the unions but because we would not get it were they to fear that their co-operation and support could result in leap-frogging by small uncooperative, unsympathetic minorities.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Mrs. Anne Kerr rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Hattersley: I have put a case which will be in the House's recollection, namely, the case of Rockware Glass, which the House debated in January, 1967, about which a Prices and Incomes Order was made. Several thousand workers covered by National Joint Industrial Council agreements for the glass container industry and the building trade had agreed gladly and willingly, and knowing the economic realities, voluntarily to postpone a wage increase until they heard that 20 of their number were not prepared to accept a voluntary standstill. The reaction of the several thousand men who, until that moment, had been prepared to accept voluntary


restraint was that if there was to be a recalcitrant 20 then they would all have their wage increase.
On that occasion, we used the statutory powers against the 20 men. The several thousand who had always wanted to apply a voluntary incomes policy were happy to apply it. They were prepared to undergo and face the sacrifice which the realities of the economic situation warranted.
That is why statutory powers are necessary and why we must underwrite the provisions of this Bill. That is why the legislation has worked and will continue to work. But—and I cannot say this too often—it will work only if the trade unions are prepared to work with it and accept it and to face the economic realities as we and they see them. We cannot accept all the economic conclusions which the T.U.C. offers to us in its annual

economic report, because, in our judgment, to operate on its basis of belief and to operate on its calculations and prophecies for economic growth would be to take unwarrantable risks with the economy were we to fall into the old Tory trap of operating on the most favourable and optimistic assumptions and hoping that everything turned out all right in the end.

The Bill seeks to make sure that the favourable assumptions, if they work, work to our advantage and that if things less favourable occur the nation and the economy are still prepared to meet the difficulties, are still capable of facing the stress and still able to build a lasting, prosperous society for Great Britain.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 255.

Division No. 154.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Alldritt, Walter
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Allen, Scholefield
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Anderson, Donald
Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Archer, Peter
Darling, Rt, Hn. George
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hamling, William


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hannan, William


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Harper, Joseph


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Baxter, William
Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Haseldine, Norman



Bence, Cyril
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hattersley, Roy


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Delargy, Hugh
Hazell, Bert


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dell, Edmund
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Binns, John
Dempsey, James
Henig, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Dewar, Donald
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Blackburn, F.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hilton, W. S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dobson, Ray
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Doig, Peter

Hooley, Frank


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dunnett, Jack
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Boyden, James
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E)


Bradley, Tom
Eadie, Alex
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Howie, W.


Brooks, Edwin
Ellis, John
Hoy, James


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
English, Michael
Huckfield, Leslie



Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Ennals, David
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ensor, David
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hunter, Adam


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Faulds, Andrew
Hynd, John


Buchan, Norman
Fernyhough, E.
Irvine, Sir Arthur


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Foley, Maurice
Janner, Sir Barnett


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ford, Ben
Jeger, George (Goole)


Cant, R. B.
Forrester, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Fowler, Gerry
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Freeson, Reginald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)


Chapman, Donald
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Coe, Denis
Gardner, Tony
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, W. E.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Concannon, J. D.
Ginsburg, David
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Conlan, Bernard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Kelley, Richard


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gourlay, Harry
Kenyon, Clifford


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Crawshaw, Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lawson, George


Cronin, John
Gregory, Arnold
Leadbitter, Ted




Ledger, Ron
Moyle, Roland
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Murray, Albert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Neal, Harold
Skeffington, Arthur


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Slater, Joseph


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Small, William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ogden, Eric
Snow, Julian


Lipton, Marcus
O'Malley, Brian
Spriggs, Leslie


Lomas, Kenneth
Oram, Albert E.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Loughlin, Charles
Orbach, Maurice
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Luard, Evan
Oswald, Thomas
Stonehouse, John


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McBride, Neil
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Swingler, Stephen


McCann, John
Palmer, Arthur
Symonds, J. B.


MacColl, James
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Taverns, Dick


MacDermot, Niall
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Macdonald, A. H.
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


McGuire, Michael
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Thornton, Ernest


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Pavitt, Laurence
Tinn, James


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Tuck, Raphael


Mackle, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Urwin, T. W.


Mackintosh, John P.
Pentland, Norman
Varley, Eric G.


Maclennan, Robert
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Wainwright, Edwln (Dearne Valley)


McMillan Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Walden, Brian (AM Saints)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



MacPherson, Malcolm
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wallace, George


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Probert, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Weitzman, David


Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Randall, Harry
Wellbeloved, James


Manuel, Archie
Rankin, John
Whitaker, Ben


Mapp, Charles
Rees, Merlyn
White, Mrs. Eirene


Marks, Kenneth
Reynolds, C. W.
Whit lock, William


Marquand, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Richard, Ivor
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Maxwell, Robert
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mayhew, Christopher
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Millan, Bruce
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Robinson, W. O. J. (Watth'stow, E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Roebuck, Roy
Woof, Robert


Molloy, William
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Moonman, Eric
Rose, Paul
Yates, Victor


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William




Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Mr. Charles Grey and


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bryan, Paul
Doughty, Charles


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Astor, John
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Drayson, G. B.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bullus, Sir Eric
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Awdry, Daniel
Burden, F. A.
Eden, Sir John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Campbell, Gordon
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Carlisle, Mark
Emery, Peter


Balniel, Lord
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Errington, Sir Eric


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cary, Sir Robert
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)


Batsford, Brian
Channon, H. P. G.
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eyre, Reginald


Belt, Ronald
Clark, Henry
Farr, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Clegg, Walter
Fisher, Nigel


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cordle, John
Forrest, George


Biffen, John
Corfield, F. V.
Fortescue, Tim


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Foster, Sir John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Black, Sir Cyril
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Galbraith, Hon. T. G.


Blaker, Peter
Crouch, David
Gibson-Wart, David


Boardman, Tom
Crowder, F. P.
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Body, Richard
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Currie, G. B. H.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Glyn, Sir Richard


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dance, James
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Braine, Bernard
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Goodhew, Victor


Brewis, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gower, Raymond


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Grant, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Grant-Ferris, R.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Donnelly, Desmond
Grieve, Percy




Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Royle, Anthony


Gurden, Harold
McMaster, Stanley
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maddan, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Maginnis, John E.
Scott, Nicholas


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Scott-Hopkins, James


Harris. Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marten, Neil
Sharples, Richard


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maude, Angus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray
Silvester, Frederick


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sinclair, Sir George


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Speed, Keith


Hay, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Stainton, Keith


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Monro, Hector
Stodart, Anthony


Heseltine, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tapsell, Peter


Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hill, J. E. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Murton, Oscar
Teeling, Sir William


Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Temple, John M.


Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hornby, Richard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hunt, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tilney, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Iremonger, T. L.
Onslow, Cranley
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. sir John


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Orr-Ewing, Sir lan
Vickers, Dame Joan


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wainwright, Richard (Co[...]ne Valley)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. [...]rinstead)
Pardoe, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wall, Patrick


Jopling, Michael
Percival, lan
Waiters, Dennis


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peyton, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Weatherill, Bernard


Kershaw, Anthony
Pink, R. Bonner
Webster, David


Kimball, Marcus
Pounder, Rafton
Wells, John (Maidstone)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kirk, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Kitson, Timothy
Prior, J. M. L.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lambton, Viscount
Pym, Francis
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Quenneli, Miss J. M.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Lane, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Langford-Holt Sir John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Rees-Davies, W. R.
Woodnutt, Mark


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Worsley, Marcus


Lloyd, lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone) 
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wright, Esmond


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wylie, N. R.


Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, Julian
Younger, Hn. George


Lubbock, Eric
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey



McAdden, Sir Stephen
Robson Brown, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacArthur, lan
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and




Mr. Jasper More.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Whitelaw]:—

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 317.

Division No. 155.]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Bullus, Sir Eric


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Black, Sir Cyril
Burden, F. A.


Astor, John
Blaker, Peter
Campbell, Gordon



Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Boardman, Tom
Carlisle, Mark


Awdry, Daniel
Body, Richard
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Cary, Sir Robert


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Channon, H. P. G.


Balniel, Lord
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Chichester-Clark, R.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Braine, Bernard
Clark, Henry


Batsford, Brian
Brewis, John
Clegg, Walter


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooke, Robert


Bell, Ronald
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Cordle, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Corfield, F. V.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Costain, A. P.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bryan, Paul
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spethorne)


Biffen, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver


Biggs-Davison, John
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Crouch, David




Crowder, F. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dance, James
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridsdale, Julian


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, Anthony
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Donnelly, Desmond
Kimball, Marcus
Robson Brown, Sir William


Doughty, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kirk, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eden, Sir John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lane, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharpies, Richard


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Silvester, Frederick


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Sinclair, Sir George


Fisher, Nigel
Lubbock, Eric
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Forrest, George
MacArthur, Ian
Speed, Keith


Fortescue, Tim
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Stainton, Keith


Foster, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McMaster, Stanley
Stodart, Anthony


Galbraith, Hun. T. G.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Giles, Rear-Adm, Morgan
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maude, Angus
Teeling, Sir William


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Temple, John M.


Cower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Grant, Anthony
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. s. L. C.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tilney, John


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Monro, Hector
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hamilton, Lord (Ferma[...]agh)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wall, Patrick


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Walters, Dennis


Harris. Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Murton, Oscar
Ward, Dame Irene


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Weatherill, Bernard


Harrison, Col. sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey
Webster, David


Harvey, sir Arthur Vere
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
wells, John (Maidstone)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

whitelaw, Rt. Hn. william


Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hay, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wolrige-Gordon Patrick


Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Higgins, Terence L.
Pardoe, John
Woodnutt, Mark



Hiley, Joseph
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
worsley, Marcus


Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian
Wright, Esmond


Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, John
Wylie, N. R.


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pike, Miss Mervyn
younger, Hn. George


Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner



Hordern, Peter
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hornby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Jasper More.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.





NOES


Albu, Austen
Barnes, Michael
Boardman, H. (Leigh)



Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Barnett, Joel
Booth, Albert


Alldritt, Walter
Baxter, William
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Allen, Scholefield
Beaney, Alan
Boyden, James


Anderson, Donald
Bence, Cyril
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Archer, Peter
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Bradley, Tom


Armstrong, Ernest
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Ashley, Jack
Bidwell, Sydney
Brooks, Edwin


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Binns, John
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)







Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Heffer, Eric S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Buchan, Norman
Henig, Stanley
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Molloy, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hilton, W. S.
Moonman, Eric


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cant, R. B.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carmichael, Neil
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Moyle, Roland


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Chapman, Donald
Howie, W.
Murray, Albert


Coe, Denis
Hoy, James
Neal, Harold


Coleman, Donald
Huckfield, Leslie
Newens, Stan


Concannon, j. D.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, John
O'Malley, Brian


Crawshaw, Richard
Irvine, Sir Arthur
Oram, Albert E.


Cronin, John
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orbach, Maurice


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Orme, Stanley


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jeger, George (Goole)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n &amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson Carol (Lewisham S)
Park, Trevor


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Johnson' Jamea (K'stnn on-Hull w.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones Dan (Burnley)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, J. Idwal (Rhondda, Wrexham)
Pavitt, Laurence


Delargy, Hugh
Jones T. Alec (Rhondda West)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dell, Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dempsey, James
Kenyon Clifford
Pentland, Norman


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)



Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Dr. David ('Worth, Central)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dickens, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Chistopher (Perry Barr)


Dobson, Ray
Lawson, George
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Probert, Arthur)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Pursey, Cmdr, Harry


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, John (reading)
Randall, Harry


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rankin, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Rees, Merlyn


Ellis, John

Reynolds, G. W.


English, Michael
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Ennals, David
Lever, L. M, (Ardwick)
Richard, Ivor


Ensor, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, Albert (Islington, &amp; W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Faulds, Andrew
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Luard, Evan
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Foley, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roebuck, Roy


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McBride, Neil
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, John
Rose, Paul


Ford, Ben
MacColl, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Forrester, John
MacDermot, Niall
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Fowler, Gerry
Macdonald, A. H.
Ryan, John


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McGuire, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Freeson, Reginald
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Sheldon, Robert


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Gardner, Tony
Mackie, John
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Garrett, W E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ginsburg, David
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Hn, S. C. (Dulwich)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Gourlay, Harry
MacPherson, Malcolm
Skeffington, Arthur


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Slater, Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Small, William


Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Snow, Julian


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, Archie
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mapp, Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth
Storehouse, John


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marquand, David
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hamling, William
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hannan, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Boy
Swingler, Stephen


Harper, Joseph
Maxwell, Robert
Symonds, J. B.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mayhew, Christopher
Taverne, Dick


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Haseldine, Norman
Mendelson, J. J.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hattersley, Roy
Mikardo, Ian
Thornton, Ernest


Hazell, Bert
Millan, Bruce
Tinn, James


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tomney, Frank







Tuck, Raphael
Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Urwin, T. W.
Whitaker, Ben
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Varley, Eric G.
White, Mrs. Eirene
Winnick, David


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Whitlock, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Walden, Brian (AH Saints)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woof, Robert


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Wallace, George
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Yates, Victor


Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)



Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Weitzman, David
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Mr. Charles Grey and




Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to the Finance Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Peart.]

Orders of the Day — PRICES AND INCOMES [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to prolong the duration of cer-

tain provisions of the Prices and Incomes Acts 1966 and 1967 and to provide for other matters including in particular the limitation and mitigation of rent increases for dwelling-houses, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State or the Minister of Housing and Local Government in relation to the limitation or mitigation of rent increases for dwelling-houses of which the rents fall to be carried to a Housing Revenue Account kept by a local authority under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958 or the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950 and for such other housing accommodation of which a local authority is landlord as the Secretary of State or the Minister of Housing and Local Government may direct. —[Mr. MacColl.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

10.27 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move,
That pursuant to Standing Order No. 43A (Allocation of time to Bills) the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill on or before Thursday 13th June and as respects proceedings on the Bill in Standing Committee, on any re-committal and on report the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House.
I move this Motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] This is a Motion under Standing Order 43A to bring the Committee stage of the Finance Bill to an end by 13th June; and to invite the Business Committee to propose an allocation of time as between the various parts of the Bill for the remainder of the Standing Committee, recommittal and Report stages.
I mention this because it limits the ground I may cover in this short speech. It is evident from what has been said by Opposition spokesmen from time to time that the root cause of the Opposition's irritation is the fact that the Bill was sent upstairs at all. But that proceeds from separate decisions in the House; first, a decision taken after debate on 6th December, 1967, to remove the prohibition in Standing Order No. 40, which had previously prevented a Finance Bill from being committed to a Standing Committee, and secondly, the decision taken at the end of the Second Reading proceedings on this year's Finance Bill —on 24th April—that that Bill should be so committed.
This being so, I would plainly be out of order if, speaking to a timetable Motion I were to retrace all the paths trodden by Government spokesmen before me on whether the Bill could or should go upstairs or not. The Bill was sent to Standing Committee on the authority of the House and what we are now discussing is the timing of its treatment there.
As Leader of the House, I have a particular responsibility to explain to the House the procedural background when

such a Motion comes before it; and since a Motion under Standing Order 43A is relatively novel, I feel it might be helpful if I were to concentrate mainly on this, leaving my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, to answer any points that may be raised on the reasons behind the poor progress that has so far been made in Standing Committee A.
First, I must obviously reply to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who said in a business question last Thursday that in arranging for a two-hour debate on this Motion I was acting like
a drawing-room storm trooper ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1968; Vol. 764, c. 1417.]
In this his view was echoed, though not quite in the same terms, by the right hon. Gentleman for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and, in the subsequent debate on the Whitsuntide Recess, by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Rids-dale) and the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). They seemed to think that in proposing the application of Standing Order 43A, I was putting upon the House something totally unexpected and unworthy. I shall try to demonstrate that this view is altogether misconceived.
This procedure has its roots in the Fourth Report for the Session 1966–67 presented in March, 1967, by the Select Committee on Procedure, which was notable for displaying a rare unanimity for a Select Committee of this kind. It canvassed the relative merits of dealing with the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House, in a Committee Room upstairs, or partly in the one place or the other. In its concluding paragraph, paragraph 21, the Select Committee said:
Both those Members who favour sending all or part of the Bill to a Standing Committee and those who believe that no change should be made are, therefore, prepared to support an experiment in voluntary timetabling for proceedings in the House, and requiring a new sessional order as described in paragraph 16.
In paragraph 16 the Select Committee said:
It is pointed out that a safeguard would be needed if there was a failure to reach voluntary agreement, or a failure, for whatever reason, to implement an agreement already made. Accordingly, it is suggested that it should be made possible, in these circumstances, for a


Minister to move a Resolution which could be debated for a short time setting up a Business Committee of the type provided for in S.O. No. 43 with power to determine the number of days to be allotted to the Bill and its further stages and the allocation of time within the overall total. This would require a new sessional order.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council felt himself under a duty to bring this recommendation to the attention of the House, and he did so. The discussion of it occupied a large part of a. general procedure debate on 19th April, 1967, and the Motion leading to a Sessional Order for last Session occupied a further five hours on 26th April and 1st May of that year. The Sessional Order then proposed was in strict accord with the Select Committee's recommendations, except that we had to put our own interpretation on what was meant by "a short time". In the course of history this semantic point has been debated many times in many Houses, and we came to the conclusion that two hours was a reasonable interpretation of the term.
This was not the last opportunity the House had to consider this question of time-tabling. Following yet another general procedure debate on 14th November, 1967, my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary moved on 6th December, 1967, what now appears as Standing Order No. 43A. This was in much the same terms as the sessional order of the preceding Session, and it was decided after further debate. So I do not think that I am open to the charge of bringing before the House a totally unexpected procedural development. It is something the House could have expected, given that activities of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West and his colleagues in Standing Committee A and elsewhere [Interruption.] Of course, I must defend back-benchers. I do.
I have dealt with the procedural background. I now turn to the reasons why we have had to put down a time-table Motion at this juncture. They are quite simple. First—[Interruption.] I beg hon. Members opposite to listen to the argument. Those who wish to oppose it will have the opportunity to do so. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West has consistently declined to undertake any kind of discussion with my right hon.

Friend about the timing of the Committee stage of the Bill. He has been perfectly frank about this on a number of occasions, and no doubt if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to explain his reasons better than I could. But as a former Leader of the House he will know that this leaves the Government entirely uncertain as to the likelihood of conducting this business in a reasonable time. In consequence, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has found himself obliged to send to you, Mr. Speaker, a notification in accordance with Standing Order No. 43A that no general agreement to allot a specified number of days to consideration of the Bill in Committee has been reached.
Furthermore, the conduct of the Opposition in Standing Committee does not enable one to have confidence that the Committee stage will be completed with reasonable expedition. So far, the Committee has had nine sittings of a total duration, excluding evening meal times, of about 62 hours. If it was to proceed under its present sittings Motion until 13th June, the date we have proposed in the Motion for the completion of the Committee stage, it would have had over 90 hours in Committee. But there is no indication that even then the Committee would finish its work on the Bill.
In the light of this, I hope that it will not be said that the Government are simply trying to keep Standing Committee A down to an unreasonably short period. May I remind hon. Members, particularly new hon. Members, that in the years 1951 to 1964, the average time spent in Committee on the Finance Bill was 64 hours 3 minutes. Standing Committee A has practically equalled that already. Therefore, the Opposition complaint against the Motion cannot be shortage of time.

Mr. Michael Alison: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that in 1965 the House spent 163 hours and in 1966 99 hours on the Finance Bill?

Mr. Peart: I have given the average over this period. It is true that there were occasions when the time spent on the Bill was more and there were occasions when it was less. But in the years


1951 to 1964, the average time spent in Committee was 64 hours 3 minutes.
I get the impression that there are those who would wish to obstruct the Bill. I hope that I am wrong. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West must have always realised that a point would inevitably come at which the Government sought to keep progress going. During his two years as Leader of the House, he guillotined no fewer than six Bills, which is equal to the number which Labour Governments have moved to guillotine or time-table in all their years of office since 1945.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Mr. Speaker has asked me to say that, as the Leader of the House has just indicated, formal notification has been received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under the provisions of Standing Order No. 43A, that no general agreement on the specific number of days or portions of days for considering the Finance Bill has been reached. The Chair is, accordingly, bound, under paragraph (1) of that Standing Order, to put the Question on the Motion not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings; that is, two hours after the right hon. Gentleman was called. The Chair will, therefore, be required to interrupt the debate, if it is still in progress, at 12.27 a.m. Mr. du Cann.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I shall be as short as I can but there are some things that require to be said and should be said. I merely regret the fact that the time for this debate is so short.
I think that all of us, without exception, have a respect and a fondness for the Leader of the House. Some may even have sympathy for him in the impossible position in which he finds himself tonight. But what he had to say about the procedural situation, I thought, was singularly unimpressive. What he had to say about the conduct of the Opposition in Standing Committee A was uncalled for, unnecessary and inaccurate. What he had to say in general about the need to guillotine this Bill was shocking, for this is a shameful thing to be doing.
Similarly, though I do not know whether this view is shared by my right

hon. and hon. Friends, I have some sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]— because the real villian of this piece, without question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has pointed out in Standing Committee A on more than one occasion, is the Lord President of the Council. He is the man who, with his little experiment, is bringing this House into serious disrepute. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)—and we are sorry that he is sick and cannot be with us—in Standing Committee A one day said that the Lord President of the Council is a man who has an idea, falls in love with that idea at breakfast time, by lunch time is half out of sympathy with it, and by dinner time is inviting somebody else to carry the can for him.
Many people outside this House are equating financial mismanagement with successive Labour Governments, but it required the Lord President of the Council to remind us again of 1931 and of Ramsay Macdonald. This experiment was never wise. There is some truth in what the Leader of the House said—that many of us expected the experiment to fail. Most of us, however, held our counsel deliberately, for we wanted to do nothing to make it fail. If it has failed, as it has, the fault lies entirely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]— I shall seek to justify that. I shall say why and I shall analyse what has happened in Standing Committee A.
First, the arrangements made for the convenience of Members on that Committee were perfectly deplorable. Constant points of order required to be raised by members of the Committee on both sides. No language can be sufficiently strong to condemn the lack of services provided by the Services Committee.
I would call attention, further, to the seeming complete indifference of the Government to this situation. It is almost as if they wished the Bill to fail, so casual were they about the comfort, convenience and conditions for hon. Members taking part.

Mr. Peart: I am sorry to interrupt, but the right hon. Gentleman said that there


was complete indifference about the comfort of Members on that Committee. I personally sought to bring in improvements. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Services Committee is an all-party Committee. Immediately I knew that something was going wrong concerning Members' comfort I took action.

Mr. du Cann: There are two points here. The first is that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—If the Leader of the House says that he took action, I accept what he says. I express gratitude to him for any action that he took. What I have been arguing is that there was a total lack of forethought. In so far as the inconvenience continued, despite the efforts of the Leader of the House, it shows clearly how absurd it was to send the Bill to the Committee.
The Leader of the House has raised the subject of time. We had the Budget a month earlier than usual and the Finance Bill was printed a month earlier. We had Second Reading only a month later and we did not begin the Committee stage until 1st May. Without going into more detail, the fact is that the Government again showed total lack of foresight in not advancing the programme for the Committee stage to make certain that the experiment would succeed. If it has not succeeded, then again the fault is theirs.
The Leader of the House referred to the amount of time taken by Divisions. We had two hours or so trotting downstairs to vote in the Chamber and going upstairs again. What could be more absurd? We had more than two hours spent in our Divisions because of the six-minute period. There were 12 hours for taking dinner and 1½ because the Chancellor so misjudged the situation that he gave us an impossible programme of Sittings in the first place, which he subsequently had to amend. Once again, the fault is entirely the Government's in not having understood what was involved.
I also have a complaint about management. I will not fault the manners of the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary or indeed, subsequent to a particular incident, the Minister of State. They treated the Committee with great courtesy throughout. On the other hand, any examination of the proceedings shows that we adjourned at night so

early that we missed getting business which another half hour or so would easily have got. This has been mishandled in Committee.
More serious, the Government appear to have totally misunderstood and underestimated the seriousness and importance of the Bill. It raises a larger amount of taxation than any other Finance Bill. It is very complex, as has become increasingly clear as our debates have proceeded, not least, for instance, in the debates on Clause 15. There are other matters too—these great changes in Purchase Tax, which make the introduction of a general sales tax much more difficult, the intolerably high rate of direct taxation, the evil tax which is S.E.T., which we shall surely repeal, and the sooner the better.
Last in this little catalogue, and by no means least, there is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) called the breadwinner and the thalidomide cases, when the family is deprived either of the breadwinner's help or of income under this ungenerous Government.
This is an important Bill requiring careful consideration, and exactitude.
There are wider points still. I understand that the Lord President wanted to relieve the House of the tedium of technicalities. Let me assure him and the Government, who appear so casual about the interests of our fellow citizens, that we on this side, and I dare say many hon. Members opposite, would much prefer to look with care at what the Government are doing with something which so substantially affects our daily life.
The Lord President said that we were to have more time for debating serious issues in the Chamber. Yet, by God, we have had only one day for the Prices and Incomes Bill—a shocking thing.
There is a mistaken view held by the Government, that somehow the volume of legislation is, per se, the equivalent of competence. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Lord President had simply not thought his proposition through. There may be an argument for having debates on the Floor of the House and then perhaps delegating technical parts of a Bill to a Committee of the whole House, with authority to call evidence, maybe


not to comment on policy, but at any rate to give the House a memorandum of views and interests. This has not been done, but it might be a practical suggestion for the future. So I hope that some good eventually comes of this nonsense.
The Lord President is always jumping from idea to idea, never thinking them through, and anything he does brings Parliament into a substantial disrepute. It is commonplace for speakers to say that they talk more in sorrow than in anger. I certainly talk in sorrow for the stupidity of this situation for a Chancellor who apparently mistrusts his colleagues and does not believe that they will take the Bill through in time.
I and many others also speak in anger because of the possibility that there will be large parts of the Bill totally undiscussed, in anger because this House, through the Committee, will be denied the opportunity to make clear what I regret to say, with sympathy for the Parliamentary draftsmen and their job, is increasingly unclear drafting. Unclear law is bad law. We may have no opportunity to review and reverse, with the good will of Treasury Ministers, errors which even now we know exist in the remainder of the Bill.
We are angry that, above all, so vital a subject should be tucked away without full discussion. Why should our constituents be taxed higher than anyone has ever been, without full opportunity for the representation of their views? That is the situation. It is deplorable and intolerable. Perhaps the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary, the Leader of the House and perhaps the Lord President do not intend it, but we are watching in one way or another, and in this matter particularly, the equivalent of Government rule by decree. [An HON. MEMBER: How would the right hon. Gentleman know?] I will tell hon. Gentlemen how I know. This is a situation which we would never have countenanced.

Mr. Michael English: Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West) rose—

Mr. du Cann: We would not betray the trust which people put in the elected representatives of the majority party—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order. I do not wish to spy

strangers, but when was this right hon. Gentleman last here?

Mr. du Cann: The hon. Gentleman deserves an answer, and I will tell him where I have been in the last week or two—upstairs in Standing Committee. I will tell him where I was before that— trying, with the encouragement of my right hon. and hon. Friends, not least that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Faulds: A very good maiden speech.

Mr. du Cann: —to lay the foundations for substantial victories in the country in the local elections and the by-elections and in the years to come.
Finally, I would ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite: if they were to be in the situation in which we are placed tonight, would their feeling be any less strong than ours? Certainly they would be no less justified. I ask what sort of a path are we treading? I think it is an alien path, a deplorable path, and I abominate it.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has given us the traditional speech on a guillotine Motion debate. It could have been repeated 50 or 60 times from both sides of the House during the time that I have been in Parliament. There were the same grumbles, the same complaints, and they are all humbug because they have been repeated time and time again.
Let me take one of the charges he made—inefficiency on the Government side in Committee. Nothing could beat the inefficiency of the Opposition. Fifteen speeches were made to clarify one point, that they did not like the climate in the Committee room. If that is not a sign of inefficiency, I do not know what is. The tedious repetition that has taken place proves that the Opposition are unable to explain their points succinctly. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) stated, quite correctly, that an approximation of 60 hours would be a reasonable time for the Finance Bill. This may not be accurate—

Mr. Alison: Is the right hon. Gentleman muddling me up with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who said 60 hours?

Mr. Woodburn: At any rate, it was a very sensible observation. It may be that 60, 70 or 50 is the right answer, but the point is that nobody tried to find out what was the right answer. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) refused to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss how many hours were required. He wished to frustrate the idea of the House in sending the Bill to the Standing Committee. The whole basis of the opposition in the Committee has been to frustrate the idea of the Finance Bill being sent upstairs, and also to conduct a vendetta against the Leader of the House. I was a member of the Select Committee which discussed that matter and to some extent the responsibility lies with him. The right hon. Gentleman also evidently thinks it is a wonderful thing for us to spend 150 hours, night and day, sitting here wasting time—

Sir Knox Cunningham: £923 million!

Mr. Woodburn: We have heard that incessantly. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) is in hospital. If anybody thinks that that is a sensible way of conducting business—

Mr. Iain Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman ought not to say things like that about a respected hon. Member of the House. He knows perfectly well that the hon. Member had an internal operation for something that could have happened to anyone, and that was not linked in any conceivable way with the proceedings upstairs. He ought to withdraw the really disgraceful implication.

Mr. Woodburn: If an hon. Member has an operation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw"]—he ought not to be subjected to the strain of sitting in that Committee and having to take an active part in it for an undue length of time. On the first day, that Committee sat for 8½ hours—

Mr. Iain Macleod: I have made it perfectly clear that there was nothing wrong with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who had an operation that night. He is now in Gordon Hospital, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that he is getting on well. As my

hon. Friend himself has said, it is not connected in any way with the Finance Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must not go on with his quite disgraceful imputation.

Mr. Woodbum: There is no question —[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] There is a danger to people's health if they are not allowed normal hours of work. If people subject themselves to strain, they run the risk of damaging their health. It is not right to ask hon. Members to undergo the sort of strain that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The House of Commons came to the conclusion that it was ridiculous to carry on our business in this way, sitting up night after night considering the Finance Bill. The Select Committee discovered that, no matter how often we sat on, the net result, with this campaign of sabotage and filibustering, was that we got one extra day on the Finance Bill timetable.
The Government do not decide the timetable. What decides it is the fact that there are only so many days in the year, and so many days before the Bill must go to another place. That settles the timetable, and therefore it is only sensible to arrange a reasonable number of days within that time.
While the Select Committee made no firm recommendation, it favoured the idea of the House coming to a voluntary arrangement to fix a timetable so that the Bill could be discussed properly. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to discuss it all carefully, but one could discuss a Bill of this sort till the cows come home.
There has been sabotage to frustrate this experiment. Last year, a voluntary timetable could not be satisfactorily arranged. This year, the Bill has been sent upstairs. But, even upstairs, we ought to be sensible. A sort of ritual has grown up about the Finance Bill, and, when I say that, I do not blame any one side. Everyone seems to think that we must sit up all night. But no business concern conducts its affairs like that. The House of Commons is composed of seemingly intelligent people. Why should we carry on this ritual of sitting up all night, delivering speeches about nothing at all? The hon. Member for Ormskirk may not have been affected, but everyone


else was bored to tears listening to the repetition, with 15 speeches to make one small point.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Could we have a timetable for this speech?

Mr. Woodburn: One of the matters about which we were asked to bleed our hearts was the little boy who came from Greece without a penny. He made a million pounds in this country and, because of taxation, he feels that he must leave. Are we to bleed our hearts because he will not pay his share of taxation, and wants someone else to pay for the country's defence and all the other matters that go with it? That is the sort of speech to which we were treated—just a lot of rubbish. Nobody could put any sense to them at all. I do not doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, North (Sir Knox Cunningham) would have enjoyed himself in that atmosphere, but it had nothing to do with the business of the House, and I hope that we shall not continue in that way.
The Select Committee recommended three possible ways of proceeding. We thought that the best way was for an agreement to be come to to keep the Bill on the Floor of the House. That proved impossible. It was decided to send the Bill to a Standing Committee, in the hope that a voluntary arrangement would be come to for a time table. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West was determined to frustrate that, he was determined to make it unworkable. The Government have, therefore, been obliged to propose a compulsory timetable. But even now, when the timetable is settled, it does not mean that sufficient time will not be granted to debate the Bill. The available time will be made available. It is for the two Front Benches to make sure that the time is used in the most sensible possible way. If anybody can suggest a more sensible alternative to that, I shall be prepared to support it.
The Opposition have themselves paid tribute to the courtesy and efficiency of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in the way he has replied to the points which they have raised. Where the Bill has been discussed properly, it has been discussed in a very responsible way. But
I am ashamed of the personal abuse and vituperation which has been directed in the Committee at the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who did nothing whatever to deserve it. If we are to be honourable Gentlemen, we ought to conduct ourselves as gentlemen.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: (Kingston-upon-Thames): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) added little to the debate, apart from a reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) which I personally very much resented. The reason for the right hon. Gentleman's failure was that he did not appear to understand the great difference in this context between a Finance Bill and an ordinary Measure.
I wish to put the view of a Member who could not be a member of the Standing Committee and who, therefore, is particularly concerned that there shall be proper opportunity for him to put his point of view on Report.

Mr. English: Mr. English rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Not at this stage. I want the opportunity to debate the Bill adequately on Report. The House was given a clear impression by the Lord President of the Council when this procedure was introduced last autumn that there would be such full opportunity. I find the Motion difficult to reconcile with the speech of the Lord President on 6th December last, when this very point about back-benchers' opportunities was raised. The right hon. Gentleman said that it could be dealt with
if we can ensure their rights in the extended Report stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 1450.]
It is an odd way to extend a Report stage to impose a Guillotine on it. The right hon. Gentleman also made the point that he was prepared to consider seriously a recommittal stage.
It is true that the guillotine Motion mentions the possibility of recommittal, but it leaves it entirely to the Business Committee. If the Lord President was being frank and honest with the House —if I may use the Prime Minister's favourite expression—he ought to have ensured that there was a recommittal stage, for the very good reasons which


we advanced during the procedure debate. He has done nothing of the sort. He has simply thrown all that to the Business Committee.
The first objection, therefore, to the Government's proposal is that it violates the understandings on which this procedure was authorised last autumn. I want to emphasise the very special nature of a Finance Bill which makes it wrong to guillotine it. I had the experience of being closely concerned with the conduct through the House of no fewer than five Finance Bills, and the Chancellors of the Exchequer with whom I was concerned, Lord Butler as he now is, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), would have regarded it as an abject confession of personal failure if they had had to ask their colleagues to introduce a guillotine Motion. We regarded it as our duty to get the Bill through by attempting to give reasonable answers to reasonable arguments, by reasonable courtesy to opponents, and by the occasional well-judged concession. In those circumstances not only did we get the Bills through, but if the right hon. Gentleman searches the records he will see that even a closure Motion was rare.
Why is it that all Governments, for very nearly 40 years, though they have guillotined other Measures have refrained from guillotining the Finance Bill? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House missed the whole point when he referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) as having guillotined a number of Measures when he was Leader of the House. They were ordinary Measures. The fact against the right hon. Gentleman is that since the unhappy year 1931 this has never been done to a Finance Bill. There must be some special reasons related to a Finance Bill which make this procedure particularly inappropriate to it, and I want to suggest one or two of them.
There is, first, the underlying knowledge in everybody's mind, in the mind of all Oppositions, that this Bill, modified in some form, has to be through in time to fit in with the Gibson Bowles timetable. The corollary to that is that if the Government introduce a controversial Finance Bill they should be prepared to give up a great deal of time to secure its proper discussion. If the Government

know that because the whole revenue of the country depends on it the Opposition will ultimately let the Bill through, they must, for their part, if they are to play fair with the Opposition, be prepared, if they introduce a controversial Finance Bill, to sacrifice other parts of their legislative programme to give adequate time for the Bill to be discussed.
There is a further point of great importance which has not been mentioned. A Finance Bill, which deals with taxation for the year, affects every constituency, and virtually every citizen in them. I have worked out that the only type of person who will not be affected by the Finance Bill is a bachelor who, since the Chancellor of the Exchequer left the Home Office, is serving a long sentence in one of Her Majesty's prisons, who neither washes, shaves, smokes, nor drinks. Everybody else is affected.
Apart from that rather rare type of animal, whom some of us may represent in limited numbers, we are all concerned to represent individual constituents who are affected by taxation proposals in any year, and, of course, a fortiori in a year when we are having the biggest increase in taxation ever imposed in any Finance Bill in time of peace. It therefore surely follows that, even if we are not specialists in these matters, we should have considerable freedom to put individual points affecting our constituencies and constituents during the formative stages of the Finance Bill when it can be amended.
The overwhelming majority of us have been denied that chance during the Committee stage, for reasons which I should be out of order if I opened, but it leads to the conclusion that a very full, free, un-guillotined Report stage is essential. Not even the Tudor or Stuart Parliaments would have allowed the Executive to deny them the opportunity of full and free discussion before they voted the taxes, yet that is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.
What is to happen if, as on the Transport Bill, a large number of new Government Amendments altering the Bill are introduced? The Business Committee has been asked to report by Thursday. The Government make a habit of introducing further new Clauses which cannot be discussed at all at any effective stage. Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer give


an assurance that there are no Government Amendments of that character in contemplation? Can he tell us this? Otherwise we are being asked to create a situation in which quite important changes in the taxation of the year may simply go through with no more debate than is possible on Third Reading. Numbers of Clauses undoubtedly will not be discussed on Report.
Then there is the further very important point which accounts for the fact that Governments have not in general guillotined Finance Bills. It is this. Another place can do nothing about this Bill. If Mr. Speaker certifies that it is a money Bill, constitutionally they can do nothing about this Bill. Even if Mr. Speaker does not so certify, in practice they do nothing about the Bill.
Therefore, even if we persuade the Government that something is wrong and that they should put it right, even the Government cannot put it right after the Report stage. It is precisely at that stage where, if we guillotine the Bill, there may be a considerable number of Clauses not discussed at all. We must therefore face the possibility that the Government's action may mean that points which the Government would have been anxious to correct will not be corrected because it will not be possible to raise them at a stage when the Bill can be amended, and it will be useless to raise them on Third Reading because the Government will be as powerless as we ourselves to put them right.
Those are some reasons why Finance Bills have not been guillotined—because we cannot use another place; because every constituent in the country is concerned; because we go back to something basic in the rights of Parliament and of hon. Members, before voting the taxes, to question them, to seek to amend them and debate them on behalf of their constituents.
The Leader of the House did not appear to understand this at all. He appeared to treat this as a routine guillotine Motion. He did not appear to understand that his predecessors—men no less intelligent than himself, and perhaps some even a little more intelligent— have not moved this Motion for what seem to me to be very good and sufficient

reasons which I have been putting to the House.
It is quite plain that the real explanation is this. It lies in the failure of Treasury Ministers and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The reason we have a guillotine Motion tonight is that the Chancellor has shown himself as incapable in managing the House of Commons as he has shown himself in managing the economy.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I am not going to enter the competition in extravagant language that these debates always seem to generate. As Chairman of the Committee on Procedure, I try to stay out of these arguments. I merely say in passing—and I say it in all frankness to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—that this synthetic indignation does not move me at all.
One fact that I have to take into account in making a speech like this is that on 6th December, as reported in column 1460 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, which is engraved in my memory, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said that this Finance Bill would clearly take place under a Guillotine. He intended to have a Guillotine because of the indignation of hon. Members opposite—I am not blaming them— at the sending of the Bill upstairs. Therefore, they intended to provoke a Guillotine. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West said that quite clearly, as will be seen in column 1460. Therefore, if we have a situation where a Guillotine was clearly on the cards, there is no point in all this synthetic indignation.
What we ought to be looking at are the lessons that we might draw from what is happening now about the future of Finance Bills. Let us stop all this huffing and puffing from both sides of the House about what we know is a situation that could have been foretold last December. When the Select Committee looked at this, as has been said, we looked at three or four possible ways of handling the Finance Bill.
The first way—and I want to say this quite frankly to the Government because I think they have been fairly stupid in the way in which this experiment is being done—was that we looked carefully at the possibility of sending the Finance


Bill upstairs. The Committee was not committed to it; we made it clear that some members of the Committee favoured it and others did not. But at least when we did look at sending it upstairs we said carefully in measured language and in detail how it should be done; and what the Government have not done is to do it properly.
The first thing one must do with any Finance Bill which has got to go upstairs is to realise, for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames mentioned, that one has got to have it back by a certain date because it must become law by 5th August, or whatever the date is. This is part of our taxation law.
Therefore the Committee said that if one is going to send it upstairs then one must add to the committal Motion sending it upstairs another Motion saying that it must be back by a certain date. This is the way to do it. The Committee further went on to say that there is no great difficulty about all this for the reason mentioned by the Leader of the House; because again when all the huffing and puffing is done we always take roughly the same number of hours on these Bills if you add it up. The Select Committee looked at this and in paragraph 3 of its Fourth Report said
In the normal way the Committee stage of the Bill has consisted of 8 or 9 days …
in the full House. Then it says, in paragraph 8, that if it went upstairs
a Standing Committee sitting six hours a day for 3 days a week could be expected to complete the Bill in 4 weeks.
This is what the lessons of history, year after year, have proved. There is nothing novel in this conclusion—we simply looked at the facts. Let us, if you wish, make it five weeks because it is a difficult Bill; it still is not difficult to say, "Right, as sensible people making all allowances for it being the most difficult Bill in the world, we could clearly have it back by 15th June." If we had all been sensible people we would have added to the Motion committing the Bill upstairs a Motion that it should come back here by the date which is the last possible date under our taxation laws, which might be 15th June or 20th June.

Mr. John M. Temple: The hon. Gentleman is rightly acknow-

ledged as an expert on procedure, being Chairman of the Committee. Can he say why, when the Finance Bill of 1966 started its Committee stage on 15th or 16th June, and got through its Committee stage after that, it was necessary for this Committee stage to be completed by 15th June?

Mr. Chapman: If the hon. Member would do me the courtesy of listening to what I am saying, I said at what is a sensible date, and whether it is 15th or 20th June does not matter. It is possible, if one looks at the lessons of history, to sit down sensibly and agree that there is a reasonable date by which this Bill should come back, and that is what the Committee said.
But this the Government did not do. They had the warning of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West that the Opposition was going to provoke the Guillotine, but they sent it upstairs without a terminal date. Now we have the stupid situation of the wasting of time in the Committee, and this stupid debate tonight.
So the first blame is on the Government; but the second blame is on the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, because not only did he set out to work for the Guillotine but he refused the compromise situation proposed by the Committee that the Bill should be left on the floor of the House but that an attempt should be made to reach a voluntary timetable.
The right hon. Member said, "I refuse to have these talks. I refuse to have any discussions with the Chancellor. I refuse." It was all "I, I, I" all the way through, "I refuse to do this, I the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer." The right hon. Gentleman has a duty to the other Members of this House. Here was a compromise solution, reached unanimously by the Select Committee. It was not just to avoid late nights. He cannot get up in a white sheet and say, "My personal agreements saved us late nights. I managed to keep control of my forces." There was another reason why we were anxious to take these debates in a reasonable manner.
If we have a timetable of some kind, we at least begin to have an interchange between the two sides. If there is none,


all the Government supporters have to sit quietly because they are blamed otherwise for keeping the House up late. Every year, the Government benches have to be empty and the Opposition complain about hon. Members on this side not being present. But they cannot be present because there is no agreement, so they feel that they will only keep their own colleagues late at night by speaking.
The biggest reason for getting an agreement for the more advantageous use of Parliamentary time is as much to get good debate as to avoid late nights. The right hon. Gentleman should have stood against his colleagues at the time and said, "There is sense in what the Select Committee says. We should, as sensible human beings, faced with the lessons of 15 years of Finance Bills, analysed in its Report, be able to reach some agreement by which we can avoid late nights and have reasonable debates." But he refused to do that because of his own personal decision, which I deplore.
What can we salvage out of this wreckage of procedure? I appeal again to the right hon. Gentleman. There is a way of solving our dilemma. It comes out of an idea which has been fathered mainly by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). He has consistently said—and I have a great deal of sympathy with him on this —that the right way to handle the Bill is to send upstairs the technical Clauses, so to speak, and keep the contentious Clauses on the Floor of the House.
Successive Chancellors had said that this is impossible, that we could not divide the Bill so easily and that the progress in Committee would be hindered if the Committee had to jump over Clauses and Amendments. I realise this difficulty but the basis of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's solution can yet be achieved.
Clearly, the Government will not abandon their basic idea of sending the Bill upstairs. We should, therefore, now fasten on the point mentioned by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames—the idea that we should have a recommittal stage, which was accepted by the Lord President of the Council in

December, and that, as sensible human beings, we should say, "When we go into Committee, let us debate certain Clauses upstairs and then, on reccommital, debate on the Floor of the House those Clauses dealing with Income Tax, the S.E.T. and other important taxes which are highly contentious."
That is a sensible way to run our affairs. It can emerge from the idea of sending the Bill upstairs, from which the Government cannot depart and from the Government's commitment to having a recommittal stage of two days at least before we have an extended Report stage. If we now begin work on such a package deal we shall, out of this procedural wreck, get a sensible way of dealing with the Bill. I hope that all hon. Members who care not only for party conflict but for our procedure and the way we look to people outside when we have such stupid debates as this, will join me in pressing this idea on the Government.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I agree with almost everything which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Donald Chapman) has just said, but there seem to me to be certain factors which are self-evident. First of all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) are not in a working relationship and, consequently, there has not been any voluntary agreement. I do not know who was responsible for the breakdown but, whoever it was, they have collectively put the rest of the House to relative inconvenience at this late hour.
One could then ask why, for the first time in 30 years or thereabouts it has not been possible to obtain some voluntary agreement. Whichever hon. Member is to blame has certainly not the gratitude of the House. The second point is that this is a back-door method of obtaining a guillotine procedure on all stages of a Finance Bill and, thirdly, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. J. Boyd-Carpenter) has said, this is the first time we have had such procedure since 1931. Fourthly, and perhaps most important, this is in respect of a Bill which aims at raising some extra £900 million in taxation.
In the long history of Parliament, there are some factors which the whole House will accept—and the Chancellor with his knowledge of constitutional history will appreciate one of them. It is, first, that the executive, whether it be the Crown or, in more recent days, the Cabinet and the Government, has always sought to resist the pressure of the legislature and has successfully done this over the years. It has also arrogated to itself greater and greater powers, to the detriment of the legislature, at Question Time and in other procedures, so that the back bench Member of this House has less and less power and less and less control.
The second factor which, to me, is self-evident, is that the power of the legislature is a limited one. It is, as we all know, the power to withhold grant of money unless accompanied by redress of grievances and this was the whole basis of the dispute between the Crown and the Government. The Crown, by resorting to the prerogative, sought to raise money without reference to Parliament, and it is, therefore, a very grave departure that the money voted, and the money-raising processes of this House should be subject to a guillotine procedure. Yet, in my respectful opinion, it becomes even more grave when looked at in parallel with some of the other activities of this Government this very week in relation to the legislature.
The events of this afternoon brought great and sincere protest from many of the Chancellor's own hon. Friends who felt that so vital a Bill as the Prices and Incomes Bill should have had more than a mere one day allotted for debate. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are Motions on the Order Paper deploring the fact that there are to be new Clauses and Amendments moved to the Transport Bill, because these have been tabled in the knowledge that practically no time will be available for hon. Members to read and consider them. I must not stray outside the rules of order, but I have heard it rumoured that three mornings and three nights next week are to be allotted for debating this Bill; another most controversial Measure. That is some indication of the way in which this Government is treating the House. To act in this way in the case of some ordinary Bill is bad enough, but to do it with a Bill vitally affecting so many

people through National Insurance, Selective Employment Tax, and the dollar-earning industries, and when it is a most complicated and comprehensive Bill flowing from a much-heralded Budget, then it is surely of the essence that there should be adequate Parliamentary time to discuss it.
The House is entitled to know why, for the first time for nearly 40 years, it was not possible for the two right hon. Gentlemen who were leading for the Government and the official Opposition to reach a voluntary agreement. It is regrettable that an agreement could not be reached because it would have made for good debate, with adequate time being allowed for matters which hon. Members feel are of importance. That is far preferable to the arbitrary falling of the Guillotine on debate.
I do not speak as one who was opposed root and branch to the Finance Bill being taken in Committee upstairs. My hon. Friends and I said that we felt that, just as the Government moved an Amend-to the effect that any Minister could attend the Finance Bill discussions without the right to vote or move Amendments or being treated as part of a quorum, but would have the right to make a contribution, so there should be the right of substitution for members of the Committee.
Had that occurred it would have been possible for, for example, a representative from Northern Ireland to be represented. No such representative is at present on the Committee. Also, it would have been possible for a substitution to be made for my party. Only one Liberal hon. Member is on the Committee and he bears the full weight of responsibility for my party. Had this been possible we could have had a more civilised arrangement and hon. Members with expert knowledge of specific points could have made contributions to the Committee. In the event, the Government were not prepared to meet that suggestion and my hon. Friends and I divided against that Amendment.
The House is entitled to the fullest explanation why no voluntary agreement has been reached on this occasion. I cannot believe that it is simply because the right hon. Member for Enfield, West is against the idea of committing the Bill upstairs. Such a reason would be to the


disservice of the House and the right hon. Gentleman, if that were the reason, would be indulging in an act of sabotage on an experiment to which the House had agreed; but no doubt he will have an opportunity to make his position clear, and likewise the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It is a grave departure and innovation that one of the, if not the, most important Bills of the year—a Measure granting the major money needed for running the country; a constituential process which is pre-eminently subject to the control of this House—should now not only be truncated by being sent upstairs but be subject to the guillotine procedure as well.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: This debate is a farce, not least because of the silent right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) who was not seated on the front bench below the Gangway, where he is now seated, but on the Opposition Front Bench in the debate on procedure referred to by my right hon. Friend which is the ultimate cause of this event tonight. At that time the right hon. and learned Gentleman was the shadow Leader of the House and was acting in that capacity.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, I believe, a totally honest man and said what he really thought in that debate. He accepted the Business Committee idea which tonight some of his hon. Friends, although not he, are describing as a strange animal. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), for example, who manages to spend his time organising elections—[Interruption]— successfully — said that his party would not countenance the action which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government. I would remind him that his party accepted the idea of a Business Committee to timetable legislation, without opposition, at the time of the procedure debate to which I referred.

Mr. du Cann: Mr. du Cann rose—

Mr. English: The right hon. Member would not give way to me; I do not see why I should give way to him. I tried five times to intervene during his speech. The right hon. Member said

that his party would not countenance the sort of action that has been taken by my party tonight, but it is exactly the principle that the Opposition accepted in the debate on procedure. Hon. Members opposite cannot now say, "We accepted it then in principle, but we did not realise what it might mean". They might say that because I suppose anything is possible for this Opposition to say, but then in that case it is clearly opposition for the sake of opposition.
This is a great pity because there are good reasons why this Motion could be constructively opposed instead of being opposed for the sake of opposition. There is a great deal to be said for the principle that the procedure on Standing Committees should be reformed and improved. Yet not one hon. Member opposite has yet said that. Not one has put forward constructive proposals for improving Committee stages of Bills, yet few hon. Members believe that our Committee procedure on Bills is ideal. Whatever reputation this House may have abroad as a legislature, it is not gained by Committee stages of Bills.
Many hon. Members said that by sending the Finance Bill to a Standing Committee we would cut off the right of individual back-benchers to make speeches on it, but we have gone further than that. It is now possible for a Bill to be passed in this Parliament without ever being debated on the Floor of the House. It can have a Second Reading in a Second Reading Committee, then go through Committee stage in a Standing Committee and a Report stage and even a Third Reading off the Floor of the House under current procedure. This is the first time in history that this House can completely rubber-stamp a Bill without debating it.
It would be much more reasonable if we went back to the old procedure as I suggested in the procedure debate and said that during the Committee stage any individual back-benchers, although not a member of the Committee, could attend the Committee and move an Amendment. The Lord President of the Council accepted that suggestion of mine provided that it was also accepted by the Opposition. The Opposition, in the person of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral, refused it. Therefore, any hon. Member of the Opposition who says that he is precluded as a back-bencher from


speaking on the Finance Bill in Committee has no one but his own Front Bench to blame. It is stupid, farcical, and even hypocritical for hon. Members opposite to say, "We have been precluded from speaking on this Finance Bill because it is in Committee upstairs". The preclusion was by the Opposition Front Bench and not by the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the burden of complaint that many of us have as back-benchers is not that we are prevented from speaking on the Finance Bill but that our colleagues on whom we had relied to put our case and to make our arguments are precluded from doing so? That is what we resent.

Mr. English: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. However, it is not the same one that he made at Question Time the other day, which I am answering, that back-benchers could not go to the Committee and make the points themselves. [Interruption.] I may have misunderstood him. I entirely understand that all Oppositions think that time is short. But the idea of the Business Committee, of timetabling all Bills—not only Finance Bills—was accepted by the Opposition.
Another right hon. Gentleman opposite —the right hon. Gentleman for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)— said that the Finance Bill is different from all other Bills. He produced the original, interesting and humorous theory that only a prisoner who did not wash, shave or do various other things would be unaffected by the Finance Bill we are passing. Would he explain to me who is unaffected by the Prices and Incomes Bill, to which we have just given a Second Reading? One cannot these days single out Finance Bills for praise or blame on the ground that they affect all members of the community. If the Prices and Incomes Bill does not affect all members of the community, I would dearly love to know what other Bill does.
This, like all guillotine Motions, has elements of farce and hypocrisy. All Governments like them, and all Oppositions dislike them. It is fortunate that under this procedure, instead of spend-

ing a day discussing how long we shall discuss something, on this occasion we are spending only two hours doing so.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I pass from the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) simply with the query as to why it was ever made, to the very eloquent speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. While he was making that very impressive speech I felt deep regret that he is not a member of the Standing Committee—but I do not wish to be cruel to him. I even more passionately regretted that he was not Leader of the House when all these decisions were made. There might then have been a chance of us all being sensible people, as he said. But he will realise that it is very difficult for Oppositions to be sensible when they have the big stick waved at them, when decisions are taken and they are just told to get on with it and like it. That was the conduct of the Lord President of the Council.
The hon. Gentleman must not think that this was entirely a unanimous recommendation. He should read the statement of opinion by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in quite clear language, with which I agree. The hon. Gentleman must accept blame because with a recommendation that was not absolutely crystal-clear and had some qualifications he was offering the then Leader of the House, the Patronage Secretary and the Treasury a perfect excuse for getting rid of the Finance Bill upstairs no matter what. That is exactly what they did.
I entirely agree with, and do not wish to repeat, all the arguments used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). Everything he said was right and fair. However, I wish to make a few comments on what the Leader of the House said. He commanded my entire sympathy, and I feel that of some of my hon. Friends, when he said that he would not retread the whole of the path which had led the Government to their present position. Nobody would wish to see the right hon. Gentleman treading the corkscrew path indefinitely. We sympathise with him in


this decision. But then he said that the House could have expected this decision. Of course it could. We always expected it because we knew very well that when the Government sent the Bill upstairs they were following their usual procedure, which is always to announce half of a decision, half of a policy, at a time. They said, "We will send it upstairs" and failed to follow it up, saying that it must come back at a certain time. But that decision was bound to come.
For the Leader of the House to move a Motion of this kind without making a single reference to the fact that the Motion was concerned with a Bill imposing an extra tax burden of over £900 million a year was frivolous in the extreme. I did not get any joy—I will not dwell on this point because the right hon. Gentleman is not here—from the rather oily smile on the face of the Patronage Secretary during most of the proceedings.
I am confounded by the totally inadequate grounds for the Motion. Governments, when they wish to impose such a Motion on the House, usually manage to find some sort of presentable grounds, but I suppose that one can at least say this for the right hon. Gentleman, that he was honest enough not to distort his case too much. He preferred it to be revealed in its full poverty. I still feel that neither he nor any of his colleagues has understood the deep distaste, not to say disgust, which we on this side of the House feel for this fascinating little experiment imposed on us against our will and without anything in the nature of consultation or consent.
It is fair to mention the conditions to which the Standing Committee was subjected. Not only did it consist of an exile, both of men and of a Measure, from the centre of Parliament, but we were sent to a grubby, stuffy, crowded Committee room so remote from the centre of operations that a six-minute interval was considered necessary to get people back there to take part in a Division.
Let us consider—I do not want to be too hostile about this—the personalities which have been involved. Nobody would challenge the urbanity of the Chief Secretary. Brevity has crept into his character for the first time. My hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of

London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) electrified the Committee by the sudden announcement that the Chief Secretary was a "dear fellow". I do not think that the rest of the House has had the opportunity of sharing this information yet. But the Committee enjoyed it enormously, and we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having done his best with a filthy job. He gets all the sticky roles thrust upon him. Defending the indefensible is something he now does with an art and skill which can only come of great intellectual ability and hard practice.
The Minister of State is a mixture of absence and presence. Nobody knows whether he is there or not. When he is, one wonders why.
Lastly, there is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I feel sorry for him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Having made the mistake of producing a dreadful Bill with some onerous things in it, he has put himself on a difficult wicket, and then he has to carry the burden of the errors of his saintly right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, who, unhappily, is not on that Standing Committee.
It is fair to mention one other personality, the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden). During the Committee stage he made a remarkable speech. I very much hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had it framed both for his own consumption and that of his right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity.
I do not want to prolong my speech. I say to the Chancellor and to the Leader of the House, and to their absent right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that we think that the handling of the Finance Bill is part of a pattern of chaos in which they are taking the risk of ruining Parliament, which is far more important and valuable than any Government ever has been or ever will be.
What are their intentions concerning Parliament? What do they think they are doing to it? To what mess or to what awful depth of muddle have they now reduced the business of Parliament?
My last question—[Interruption.]—this is typical of the reactions that we get upstairs from time to time when the


veil of silence is finally torn away. The Government, with their policies and the muddle into which their half decisions have got them, are doing something to Parliament and to the country which represents harm beyond repair, and far greater in extent than any transient and small importance that those occupying the Treasury Bench may from time to time think that they possess.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I intend to speak for only 10 minutes. I apologise for rising now, but the Chancellor apparently requires 20 minutes.
The former leader of the Liberal Party in his constituency last weekend, when discussing the general state of chaos of Government business, referring particularly to the guillotining of the Transport Bill, and now of the Finance Bill, said: "This is not Fascism. It is sheer incompetence."
I have no doubt that that is exactly the right verdict, but I think one should add that it is possible that the sheer weight of Government muddle begins to give unhappy strength to those voices, which both sides of the House despise, which call into question from time to time Parliamentary democracy.
We can be fairly well agreed and fairly brief on matters which we are not discussing. We are not discussing whether the Government have a right to have a Guillotine for their business from time to time. Of course they have. We are not discussing, I think, the particular details of the discussions in Committee. What I regard as the key matter is that which I put to the present Leader of the House last Thursday, that, with the single and lamentable exception of 1931, all Chancellors, of all three parties, succeeded in getting their Finance Bills through without a Guillotine. This is the main point which is before the House. Every excuse in relation to the time which we had been given is false and I wish to show this from the records of the three Finance Bills, in 1965, 1966 and 1967, for which the Government, in the person of the present Home Secretary, have been responsible.
It is true that the Bill has to obtain the Royal Assent by 5th August. It is not true to go on and say, as was said at the beginning of Committee stage,

that the Bill must be in another place by 5th July. In 1965, the Third Reading in this House was on 15th July. In 1966 it was on 28th July, still in this House. In two of the three years, the date of 5th July meant nothing to the former Chancellor, and this was quite right.
The next point is that we were told that the Bill had to be out of Committee by Whitsun. I have all the dates for the Whitsun Recess and Committee stages, and in not a single case, in 1965, 1966 or 1967, was the Bill out of Committee before the Whitsun Recess. In one case it was not started in Committee until after the Recess. There is, therefore, no point whatever to be made about the Recess.
There is the question of whether there should be an arrangement at all. With respect to the Leader of the Liberal Party, with most of whose speech I agreed, I thought that he and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) were both wrong. The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been agreements every year since 1931. The hon. Member for Birmingham, North-field took a contrary view, and said that there was not an agreement last year. There was such an agreement. I said, as soon as the Bill was announced, that there would be no difficulty about getting agreement. I spelled it out, and if the House consults the debates in December it will find that not only were tributes paid about the extent of the agreement but that there was no secret that such an agreement had been made.
If we take these three years: in 1965, 165 hours were spent when there was virtually no agreement; in 1966, there were nearly 100 hours—99½—with a sort of understanding; and in 1967 there was an agreement which got the Bill through in a reasonable time. The position is that the length of time taken naturally varies. It is the hours which matter. With respect to the Leader of the House it is naive to take the years 1951 to 1964 and stop the comparison there, because they were not years of heavy increases in taxation or enormous innovation.
These are the two points which matter. It is not possible to equate the time necessary for a Bill which this year raises £923 million in a full year, with one which, last year, was planned to raise £500 million in a full year. The truth is that


in the three years, 1965–67, with no agreement, partial agreement and full agreement, in every case the then Chancellor got his Bill, just as every Chancellor of all three parties before has done for 50 years, with the exception of the Motion moved by Ramsay Macdonald in 1931. The reason is that there is a price to be paid if one introduces a Finance Bill with heavy taxation, or a good deal of innovation, or, as in this case, with both.
The price is either late sittings or the dropping of small minor items in the rigid programme. This Government have refused to have a reasonable number of late sittings, and have gone on adding to their minor programme. I appeal on this matter, not to the Chancellor, but to the Business Committee, which consists of senior, respected Members of the House. Wherever possible it seeks to meet the wishes of the Opposition. Frequently, in anger, the Business Committee is boycotted by one side or another.
We have no intention of doing this if the Motion is passed. We will nominate two of our most senior and experienced Members of the Committee to represent us. The appeal I make to the Committee has to do with the fact that we were given the date of 13th June. We bitterly resent it, because it is far earlier than in any of the other years, and is quite unnecessary. There is no need to link it with the Whitsun Recess, or 5th July. Could there at least be no sub-division into Clauses and subsections? If the final date is a terminal date, let us leave it at that. Would the Business Committee set up a number of days? On this side we would like the maximum possible number for discussion in the time which is left. We believe that some of the hours should be very long.
I make one point in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Even to suggest guillotining the recommittal of the Report stage is a breach of the memorandum of the Chief Secretary which said that a corollary of a Guillotine in Standing Committee would be that there should be no such restriction on Report. It is very sad to see that this has been broken on this occasion. I will conclude now because the Chancellor wants a considerable

amount of time—[Interruption.] I have had a message from him to this effect. I do not doubt that we will come to debate the attitude of the Government, including the Chancellor, the Leader of the House and the Lord President, because of the chaos which Parliamentary business is in.
When we do so, it will be at a time of our choosing, and as the main business of the day. There is no doubt that Government business is in chaos and is getting worse. If the Business Committee operates along the lines along which I have appealed to it to operate it may make some marginal improvement. Nothing can save for long a Government who have shown themselves at every stage weak, incompetent and contemptuous of the rights of debate and of the minority in the House.

12.10 a.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) was in somewhat more moderate form tonight than he was last night. I welcome the change, and I will endeavour to reply to some of the specific points which he put.
He began by saying that there was nothing against a guillotine Motion as such, and that is indeed well, because there is no doubt that he, as Leader of the House, had a most remarkable record as a guillotiner. He is the only Leader of the House in history who has ever on two separate occasions guillotined two Bills in one day and within six weeks of each other—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have heard one side; we must hear the other.

Mr. Jenkins: The London Government Bill, a Bill not without importance, he guillotined without even waiting to see how it got on in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who made a cogent speech, as he always does, argued a special case for Finance Bills. It is the case that a Government ought to proceed with particular care in putting a timetable Motion on a Finance Bill. I admit that freely, but it is also of the nature of Finance Bills that they are of such central importance to the legislative programme of a Government that they


must also be peculiarly careful that they can get the Bill through if they are to carry on It is my own view that all Governments should use timetable Motions sparingly, and I think they mostly do. The Labour Party has, in fact, been most sparing in this respect.
I am bound to say to the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) that the Liberal Party has been the most extravagant. It used it 32 times in the years up to 1914, but this was because it was confronted with a Tory Opposition in the sort of mood that Tories are in when they have lost two consecutive General Elections. The Labour Party has used it only three times between 1945 and 1951, and only twice since 1964 until now, compared with 15 occasions on which it was used between 1951 and 1964.
When should such a Motion be used? The broad answer is when the Government need it to get their business through, but the most clear-cut definition that I can find, going into a little more detail, was given by Lord Butler in 1961. He said:
Before introducing a timetable Motion, a Government have to be satisfied about three things; first, that it is not possible to get the business done by agreement, secondly, that under the proposed timetable there will be adequate time for discussion and that the most efficient use is made of Parliamentary time— we attach great importance to that—and thirdly, that the use of the Guillotine is essential."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1961; Vol. 636, c. 45.]
I propose briefly to test our Motion by precisely these three criteria. First, could we have got the business done by agreement? This was precisely the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party. Quite clearly not, and he will no doubt note that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West made no attempt to answer him on this point. The right hon. Gentleman made it quite clear to me that he would not meet me anywhere under any circumstances to discuss an arrangement. In one speech in the Committee, he indicated that he was frightened of being treated as a bell-hop instead of as a Privy Councillor, a form of neurosis which I have never found present in the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg).
Clearly, the first criterion was fulfilled. The business could not be done

by agreement, and it could not be done, I ask the leader of the Liberal Party to note, because the right hon. Gentleman would not even begin to discuss whether it could be done by agreement.
What about the second criterion? Already we have spent over 60 hours in Committee on the Bill. Under the proposed timetable, we suggest that about another 50 should be available, making a total of 110 hours and amounting to the longest but one allocation for 45 years.
The average time available since the war, not taking 1951 to 1964 but the whole period of different Governments, has been 67 hours. On nine occasions, there have been longer Bills than this one, yet only on two, both under Labour Governments, was 100 hours or more given. In addition, we propose that the time spent on subsequent stages on the Floor of the House should be several times the average of many years past. Therefore, there is no question of adequate time not being given for discussion.
How it is used is another matter. We began with 1¼ days on the sittings Motion. This period of eight hours was liberally interspersed with Opposition speeches and points of order on such vital matters as whether the windows be open or shut, whether the fans be on or off, and whether the dinner interval should be one hour or 1¼ hours. This last point brought forth eight speeches or parts of speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite, all of them arguing for a longer interval and, therefore, for less time for debate.
I express no strong view about what is a desirable time for a dinner interval. All I would express is mild surprise that, if hon. Gentlement opposite desperately wanted more time to debate what they regard as this great affront to our financial and constitutional liberties, eight of them should, in those circumstances, have devoted quite a lot of time to arguing strenuously for a longer dinner interval. I do not think that they are quite the stuff of which village Hampdens are made.
I come last to Lord Butler's third criterion: was a timetable essential to get the Bill through in time? The answer to this, again, is quite clearly yes, and I will come precisely to the point put to


me by the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.
Up to the time when my right hon. Friend announced the timetable Motion in the House, we had sat for six days, including one all-night sitting, and had disposed of about a fifth of the Amendments on the Order Paper, making no allowance for those yet to be put down. We had completed 14 out of 56 Clauses, leaving aside the 50 new Clauses already down. At this rate of progress, we would have taken another 11 weeks in Committee, and let me say that we were sitting for two days a week and not three precisely because I acceded to the right hon. Gentleman's request on that point. Therefore, at this rate of progress, we would not have got the Bill out of Committee until the end of July.
If taxes are to continue to be collected, it has to be law by 5th August. That would have left us about five days, including a weekend, for recommittal, Report, Third Reading, and the 28 days for which the other place is usually entitled to have the Bill before it. The Opposition left me—they know perfectly well that this is what they were doing —with no choice between a timetable and the possibility of losing the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Enfield, West pretends that I went to the Committee determined on a guillotine Motion. He is quite wrong. If that were so, why does he think that I met him on the sittings Motion? Why does he think that we ground slowly through an all-night sitting? Why does he think I made constant endeavours to hold some discussion with him? Why did I not behave as he did in 1962 and impose a timetable before the Bill had even gone to Committee? [HON. MEMBERS: "That was not the Finance Bill."] Hon. Members must not just dismiss other important Measures such as the London Government Bill and the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. That was the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman guillotined before it had even gone into Committee.
The truth is that it was not I but the right hon. Gentleman who was determined on a Guillotine. He made that absolutely clear on 6th December last. This has already been quoted in a powerful

speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), but, as the House is somewhat fuller now, I should like to quote it again. The right hon. Gentleman said:
The 1968 Finance Bill will take place under a Guillotine and there is no prospect of anything else."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 1460.]
Now, he tries constantly to pretend upstairs that it was in some way something which I did in Committee which forced him to that view.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Chancellor knows perfectly well that, prior to that, there had been the Select Committee and his principal adviser, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, had said that an inevitable accompaniment of the Bill going upstairs is a Guillotine. I based myself on the Chief Secretary's memorandum.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: If the right hon. Gentleman is basing himself on the Chief Secretary's memorandum, I wish he would base himself on an accurate memory of it. The Chief Secretary said nothing about a Guillotine. He said that it was essential to have a timetable, and that meant an agreed timetable.

Mr. Macleod: No. The memorandum said nothing about agreement. It was absolutely clear from the Chief Secretary that there should be an allocation of time. That is absolutely specific, and it has been quoted many times in the Standing Committee. The Chief Secretary knows that perfectly well, and the Chancellor is trying to wriggle out of it.

Mr. Jenkins: The Chief Secretary— whom the right hon. Gentleman has been very anxious to use in order to drive a wedge between him and me—assures me that that was not in his memorandum, and that he certainly did not exclude a voluntary timetable. But what we are discussing is whether it was the right hon. Gentleman or I who went to the Committee determined to have a Guillotine. I have quoted the absolutely firm observation which he made five months before the Committee began, and to pretend that anything arose out of what happened in the Committee is pure hypocrisy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] The right hon. Gentleman wanted a timetable Motion in order to be able to kick up a fuss on the Floor of the House.

Hon. Members: Read it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us leave the matter to the protagonists.

Mr. Jenkins: The words were read out over and over again in Committee. What we are discussing is whether it was the right hon. Gentleman or I who was determined on a Guillotine. The right hon. Gentleman gets more and more fond of personal invective rather than rational argument. I have told him, and he knows

perfectly well, that it was he who wanted the Guillotine, and not I. What we have done is to put forward rational arguments in Committee and in the House, and that we propose to continue to do in the substantial additional amount of time which will be available under this time-table Motion which I commend to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 245.

Division No. 156.]
AYES
[12.27 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Dell, Edmund
Hunter, Adam


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dempsey, James
Hynd, John


Alldritt, Walter
Dewar, Donald
Irvine, Sir Arthur


Allen, Scholefield
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Anderson, Donald
Dickens, James
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Archer, Peter
Dobson, Ray
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Armstrong, Ernest
Doig, Peter
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp; St.P'cras.S.)


Atkins, Rona d (Preston, N.)
Dunnett, Jack
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Barnett, Joel
Ellis, John
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)


Beaney, Alan
English, Michael
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)



Bence, Cyril
Ennals, David
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ensor, David
Kelley, Richard


Bennett, Jamas (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Kenyon, Clifford


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Kerf, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Binns, John
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr, Dr. David(W'worth, Central)


Blackburn, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lawson, George


Boardman, H, (Leigh)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Ledger, Ron


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Foley, Maurice
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Boyden, James
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, John (Reading)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ford, Ben
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brooks, Edwin
Forrester, John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Fowler, Gerry
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lipton, Marcus


Buchan, Norman
Gardner, Tony
Lomas, Kenneth


Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn)
Garrett, W. E.
Loughlin, Charles


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ginsburg, David
Luard, Evan


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
Lyon, Alexander w. (York)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cant, R. B.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McBride, Neil


Carmichael, Neil
Gregory, Arnold
McCann, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacColl, James


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacDermot, Niall


Chapman, Donald
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Macdonald, A. H.


Coe, Denis
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Hamling, William
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Concannon, J. D.
Hannan, William
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackie, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackintosh, John P.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Haseldine, Norman
McNamara, J. Kevin


Crawshaw, Richard
Hattersley, Roy
MacPherson, Malcolm


Cronin, John
Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Healey Rt. Hn. Denis
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Henig, Stanley
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Manuel, Archie


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hilton, W. S.
Mapp, Charles



Hooley, Frank



Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Horner, John
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marquand, David


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howie, W.
Mayhew, Christopher


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hoy, James
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Huckfield, Leslie
Mendelson, J. J.


Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mikardo, Ian




Millan, Bruce
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Swingler, Stephen


Mine, Edward (Blyth)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Taverne, Dick


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Molloy, William
Robert, Arthur
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Moonman, Eric
Randall, Harry
Thornton, Ernest


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rankin, John
Tinn, James


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rees, Merlyn
Tomney, Frank


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Reynolds, G. W.
Urwin, T. W.


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Varley, Eric G.


Moyle, Roland
Richard, Ivor
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Warden, Brian (All Saints)


Murray, Albert
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Neal, Harold
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) 
Wallace, George


Newens, Stan
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.) 
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) 
 Weitzman, David


Norwood, Christopher
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wellbeloved, James


Ogden, Eric
Roebuck, Roy
Whitaker, Ben


O'Malley, Brian
Rose, Paull
White, Mrs. Eirene


Oram, Albert E.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Whitlock, William


Orbach, Maurice
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Orme, Stanley
Ryan, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Oswald, Thomas
Shaw, Arnold (IIford, N.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) 
 Sheldon, Robert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, W. T (Warrington)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
 Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Paget, R. T.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Winnick, David


Park, Trevor
Skeffington, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Slater, Joseph
Woof, Robert


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Small, William
Wyatt, Woodrow


Pavitt, Laurence
Snow, Julian
Yates, Victor


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Spriggs, Leslie



Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) 
 TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pentland, Norman
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Storehouse, John
Mr Alan Fitch.


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhew, Victor



Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) 
Clark, Henry
Gower, Raymond


Astor, John
Clegg, Walter
Grant, Anthony


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Cooke, Robert
Grant-Ferris, R.


Awdry, Daniel
Cordle, John
Gresham Cooke, R.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Corfield, F. V.
Grieve, Percy


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Costain, A. P.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Balniel, Lord
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) 
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Gurden, Harold


Batsford, Brian
Crouch, David
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Crowder, F. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Belt, Ronald
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Currie, C. B. H.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dance, James
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bessell, Peter
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.) 
 Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Biffen, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Biggs-Davison, John
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hastings, Stephen


Black, Sir Cyril
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hawkins, Paul


Blaker, Peter
Doughty, Charles
Hay, John


Boardman, Tom
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Body, Richard
Drayson, G. B.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bossom, Sir Clive
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Heseltine, Michael


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Eden, Sir John
Higgins, Terence L.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Emery, Peter
Hiley, Joseph


Braine, Bernard
Errington, Sir Eric
Hill, J. E. B.


Brewis, John
Eye, Reginald
Hirst, Geoffrey


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Farr, John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter 
Fisher, Nigel
Holland, Philip


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hordern, Peter


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Forrest, George
Hunt, John


Bryan, Paul
Fortescue, Tim
Hutchison, Michael Clark



Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M) 
Foster, Sir John
Iremonger, T. L.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone) 
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)



Bullus, Sir Eric
Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Burden, F. A.
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Campbell, Gordon
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Cary, Sir Robert
Glyn, Sir Richard
Kershaw, Anthony


Channon, H. P. G.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kimball, Marcus







King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Nott, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Kirk, Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Stodart, Anthony


Lambton, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Lane, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Edward M.(C'gow, Cathcart)


Legge-Bourke, sir Harry
Pardoe, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pearson, sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Teeling, Sir William


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Percival, Ian
Temple, John M.


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Peyton, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Longden, Gilbert
Pike,R. Bonner
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lubbock, Eric
Pink, R. Bonner
Tilney, John


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pounder, Rafton
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


MacArthur, Ian
Powell, Rt. Hn J.Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Prior, J. M. L.
Vickers, Dame Joan



Pym, Francis



McMaster, Stanley
Quennell Miss J. M.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Maddan, Martin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Maginnis, John E.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wall, Patrick


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rees-Davies, w. R.
Walters, Dennis


Marten, Neil
Renton, Rt. Hn. sir David
Ward, Dame Irene


Maude, Angus
Rhys, Williams, Sir Brandon
Weatherill, Bernard


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Webster, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridsdale, Julian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wills, Sir Gerald(Bridgwater)


Miseampbell, Norman
Royle, Anthony
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Monro, Hector
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Montgomery, Fergus
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


More, Jasper
Scott, Nicholas
Woodnutt, Mark


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sharples, Richard
Wright, Esmond


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wylie, N. R.


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Silvester, Frederick
Younger, Hn. George


Murton, Oscar
Sinclair, Sir George



Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Neave, Airey
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Speed, Keith
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stainton, Keith

Resolved,

That pursuant to Standing Order No. 43A (Allocation of time to Bills) the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill on or before Thursday, 13th June, and as respects proceedings on the Bill in Standing Committee, on any recommittal and on report the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House.

Orders of the Day — BARBADOS (GIFT OF A PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY)

12.39 a.m.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a gift of a Parliamentary Library to the Barbados House of Assembly and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
It might be for the convenience of the House if in moving this Motion on the gift to Barbados, I also referred to the Motion which I intend to move relating to the gifts to the Legislatures of the Associated States of St. Christopher,

Nevis and Anguilla, Antigua, Dominica, St. Lucia and Grenada.
The gift to Barbados follows the now established tradition of this House, which we are glad to honour, that we send a gift to the Legislature of a Commonwealth country to mark that country's independence within the Commonwealth.
The gift to the Associated States marks the achievement of complete internal self-government and associated status with the United Kingdom of member countries.
On 29th November, 1966, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in reply to a Question, informed the House that Her Majesty's Government would propose that the House should offer an independence gift to the Barbados House of Assembly, and on 22nd February, 1967, he made a similar announcement in respect of the Associated States.
The Parliamentary authorities in Barbados and the Associated States, whose wishes were naturally considered, welcomed these proposals and two complete libraries of Parliamentary and constitutional works of reference have


therefore been assembled. Lists of the books selected are available in the Library.
If the House accepts this Motion, as I feel sure it will, arrangements will be made during the next two months. I therefore commend the Motion to the House in the expectation that it will be accepted as an expression of our friendship with and good will towards the Legislatures of Barbados and the Associated States.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a gift of a Parliamentary Library to the Barbados House of Assembly and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — ASSOCIATED STATES (GIFT OF A PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a gift of a Parliamentary Library to the Legislatures of the Associated States of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla, Antigua, Dominica, St. Lucia and Grenada and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.—[Mr. Peart.]

12.42 a.m.

Sir John Rodgers: As the Lord Privy Seal has said, it is an honourable tradition of the House that we should make some commemorative gift to territories which have achieved either complete independence or associated status, but before we present a humble petition to Her Majesty in this case I want to draw attention to the state of tension which exists and the fact that Anguilla does not wish to be associated with St. Kitts and Nevis.
Therefore, if we are to proceed with the presentation of a gift to St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to give a special and separate gift to Anguilla in the circumstances which prevail, in which it is being administered by a British civil servant from the Commonwealth Affairs Office.

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I am not opposing the Motion but I think that, before we go ahead with it, we should give thought to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Seven-oaks (Sir J. Rodgers).
These three islands were given associated status and then there was political trouble. Anguilla broke away and declared its independence. I know that island well and I know its people. I do not think that they would wish, if there were a referendum, to go back to the other two islands of St. Kitts and Nevis. I therefore support my hon. Friend's suggestion that we might consider whether one-third of this library should not be given to Anguilla, because it has certain difficulties in getting its share of aid. It would be a nice gesture if we could at least give it some books.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Of course we all support the gesture that is to be made, but will the Lord Privy Seal, before the petition is presented to Her Majesty, ensure that there is the fullest consultation with the Commonwealth Affairs Office about the delicate situation which exists in Anguilla so that no embarrassment will arise? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us that assurance?

12.45 a.m.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I am glad that hon. Members do not oppose the Motion. I have noted carefully what has been said on the issue of consultation and certainly give the undertaking which they seek but, at the same time, I am afraid I cannot go beyond what is in the Motion. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate this. This is, after all, a gesture. We are giving a library of Parliamentary books which, we hope, will be appreciated by all the islands concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a gift of a Parliamentary Library to the Legislatures of the Associated States of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla, Antigua, Dominica, St. Lucia and Grenada and assuring


Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES

12.47 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): I beg to move,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 4) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 679), dated 30th April, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.
The main purpose of this Order is to implement on 1st July the first instalment of import duty reductions agreed in the Kennedy Round of Trade Negotiations, which were concluded in Geneva in June, 1967. The main elements of the agreement were briefly described by the then President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Douglas Jay) in this House on 31st May, 1967. That statement was welcomed on both sides of the House, and welcomed in greater detail in the White Paper presented last July. As hon. Members will have read that White Paper, my introductory speech is shorter than would otherwise have been possible; and brevity will no doubt be welcomed at this hour.
Briefly, the Kennedy Round negotiations were the most ambitious attempt ever made to lower barriers to world trade. Some fifty countries, accounting for about eighty per cent. of world trade, took part. Trade in the industrial products subject to tariff concessions amounted in 1964 to about 40,000 million dollars, and the United Kingdom, the E.E.C. countries, the United States, and Japan agreed to duty reductions of, in many cases, up to 50 per cent. and averaging overall, nearly 40 per cent. Based on our imports of dutiable industrial goods from these three sources in 1964, our reductions amount to 37 per cent. in the case of E.E.C, 40 per cent. in the case of the United States, and 34 per cent. in the case of Japan; and this is closely in line with what we received from them.
In relation to our imports from all countries outside the Commonwealth preference area and E.F.T.A., the average reduction in our duties will be about 38 per cent. For the first time in the

history of the G.A.T.T. tariff negotiations, there was also a significant agricultural element in the settlement. This embraced arrangements for world trade in cereals, as well as some reductions in agricultural tariffs. In addition, a start was made in lowering non-tariff barriers to trade. The results in these non-tariff fields were an essential part of the general settlement, but this Order is concerned only with the tariff aspects.
The tariff concessions agreed by the participating countries are set out in the national schedules attached to the Geneva (1967) Protocol to the G.A.T.T., and that Protocol is open for acceptance until 30th June, 1968. The United Kingdom, along with all other participants, signed the final Act authenticating the results of the negotiations on 30th June, 1967, and we have notified the G.A.T.T. Secretariat that it is our intention to sign the protocol as soon as our first instalment of tariff cuts has received Parliamentary approval.
The protocol gives participant countries the option of making the agreed tariff reductions in five annual, equal instalments, starting on 1st January, 1968, or of making two-fifths of the total reductions on 1st July, 1968, and a one-fifth reduction on 1st January, 1970, 1971, and 1972. The United States and 11 other countries have adopted the first method, and have already made the first instalment of the reductions they agreed. The United Kingdom, the E.E.C. countries and Japan, and all other major participants, are adopting the second method.
The Order simply makes the first instalment of the United Kingdom's agreed tariff reductions; that is, two-fifths of the total concessions as shown in Schedule XIX—the U.K. Schedule to the Geneva Protocol. Because these duty reductions affect a wide range of goods, the Order takes the form of a consolidating Order, with a Schedule showing the protective duties applicable, as from 1st July, to all goods in the U.K. tariff. In a few cases the duty rate in the Order is the final rate, which we are not obliged to reach until 1st January, 1972.
This is usually because the duty reduction is so small that it cannot appropriately be staged; for example, preserved sweetened pineapple, on which the duty is being reduced from 5s. 7d. to 5s. 6d.


per cwt. In a number of cases the duty reduction made by the Order is not the exact arithmetic equivalent of 40 per cent. of the total reduction agreed. This is because we took the opportunity in the Kennedy Round negotiations to introduce a modest, but much-needed measure of simplification and rationalisation into our tariff.
The United Kingdom introduced its general protective tariff in 1932, though a few duties were introduced before then. Over the years, a large number of changes have been made in duty rates for domestic and international reasons, and the structure of the tariff has become excessively complicated and fragmented. The Kennedy Round negotiations offered a unique opportunity to improve this situation and what was agreed there will eventually reduce the number of subheadings from about 3,400 to 2,750 and will also simplify some of the more complicated duty rates. The new tariff will be easier both for traders to understand and for our Customs officers to administer, with consequent benefit to the trading community.
Many of these simplification changes are included in the Order, but some of the sub-heading amalgamations will be made in subsequent instalments of the Kennedy Round changes to avoid including unduly large reductions of duty on particular sub-headings in this first instalment. The opportunity was also taken in the Kennedy Round negotiations to convert some duties from a specific to an ad valorem basis or, less frequently, from an ad valorem to a specific basis. This has been done to avoid wide variations in the incidence of the existing duty on different goods covered by the same tariff heading, and to provide a more appropriate basis for charging duties on the products concerned.
In the great majority of cases, of course, these changes will have the result of a reduction in the rates of duty by 1972, but for a few there may, nevertheless, be an increase in the actual amount of duty charged as from 1st July on particular goods imported from some sources.
Similarly, there may be some increases in duty arising from the change made in the method of calculating the duties applicable to made-up textile articles

which contain silk and/or man-made fibres. At present, the duties charged on these products depend on the value of the man-made fibre content in relation to the value of all the components. To remove the considerable administrative difficulties which the system imposes on both Customs officers and traders, and to bring the basis of calculation into line with that used for yarns and fabrics, a change is being made so that from 1st July, 1968, the duty will depend on the relative weight of the silk or man-made fibre content of the goods.
This particular change in the textile sphere can result in an increase in duty on certain goods because the silk or man-made fibre content may be higher when calculated on a weight basis than it is on a value basis. Although overseas manufacturers may be able to make adjustments to take account of this change, some traders have drawn our attention to the substantial increased burden of duty which will fall on them in respect of firm contracts already placed with their suppliers.
The changes have, in general, been made after consultation with industry and were reflected in the United Kingdom's offer accepted by the parties in Geneva Nevertheless, we appreciate that in a few cases the initial impact of the change can be serious, and for this reason we propose to allow importers the option of classifying imports on the old value basis or the new weight basis for a limited period after 1st July.
A further Order will be laid shortly to give effect to this. In the case of carpets containing man-made fibres, representations have been made that the change is likely to result in a significant permanent increase in duty. For these goods we shall consider, in consultation with the trades and industries concerned, whether it is feasible to make some further lasting adjustment to the tariff.
The wide scope of the Kennedy Round negotiations was bound to affect the tariff preferences enjoyed by countries within the Commonwealth Preference area. However, by consultations during the negotiations, we were able to take into account the views of other Commonwealth Governments on proposed concessions that would affect preferences in the British market of particular importance to them and also to make our


views known about the importance to us of preferences which would be affected by concessions offered by other Commonwealth Governments. In the event, the effect on the overall average preferential margins—both ways—was relatively small.
During the Kennedy Round negotiations, the industrialised countries agreed to consider implementing in full and at once tariff cuts of particular interest to the less developed countries. In November, 1967, the United Kingdom notified the G.A.T.T. Secretariat of the items on which we would be prepared to do this provided other developed countries made offers broadly comparable in scope. Similar concessions are being made by the E.E.C., U.S.A. and Japan and we have accordingly informed the G.A.T.T. Secretariat that we shall implement our accelerated reductions on 15th July. For technical reasons it has not been possible to include them in the present Order and a further Order will be laid shortly.
The Order also deals with a matter not connected with the Geneva negotiations. This is the status of the duties on hops, hop oil and hop extracts. Since 1925 these products have been subject to revenue duties, but because there is no equivalent excise duty they are wholly protective in effect. Indeed, when they were introduced the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Winston Churchill, described them as "nakedly protective". It is, therefore, appropriate that they should be recognised as such and imposed under the Import Duties Act rather than by the Finance Act.
Clause 2(3) of the Finance Bill removes the revenue duties on hops and hop products from 1st July and the present Order imposes import—that is, protective—duties on that date. The duties will remain exactly the same except that they will not apply to imports from the Irish Republic. This is because Article IV of the Free Trade Area Agreement with the Irish Republic requires us to remove by 30th June, 1968 the protective element in our existing revenue duties—in this case, the whole of the duty.
I welcome the opportunity to put before the House the practical results of the Kennedy Round. This Order marks

an important step in the process of lowering tariff barriers on world trade. During the Kennedy Round negotiations we had very much in mind both the opportunities which this process will open to our exporters and the interests of British industry in their domestic market and the views which they put to us. Inevitably, the results could not be wholly satisfactory to all firms and industries, but I must emphasise that the concessions given on particular products were part of a "package" deal and that we cannot now go back on what was agreed at Geneva. It is open to industry at any time to apply to the Board of Trade for a duty increase and such applications can be considered under the normal procedure for examining requests for changes in the protective tariff.
However, if a duty were to be increased above the level which has been "bound" in the G.A.T.T. as a result of the Kennedy Round, contracting parties to the G.A.T.T. with a substantial trade interest in the products would have the right to request consultations with a view to negotiating compensation, and such compensation would probably have to take the form of a tariff concession on some other product of interest to the countries concerned. The increase of such a bound duty rate can therefore be contemplated only if there is a very strong case indeed. Other countries which receive complaints from their industries about duty reductions conceded to our benefit in the Kennedy Round are, of course, subject to the same G.A.T.T. rules.
The importance of the Kennedy Round must be judged by its overall results. The changes made in the United Kingdom tariff by this Order are only one part of an extensive multilateral agreement which we are confident will give an impetus to the expansion of world trade which is of such importance to this country. Accordingly the Order is commended to the House.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: It is pleasant after the rather vigorous debates we had earlier to find an important subject on which both sides of the House can agree. I assure the Minister that most of the time I shall be agreeing with the sentiments he expressed,


but first I must strike one note of criticism. The Order states that
… no import duty shall be charged in the case of goods of the Republic of Ireland consigned to the United Kingdom from that country.

The feelings of hon. Members on this side of the House about the free trade agreement with the Republic of Ireland are less than enthusiastic, because it appears to be turning out, as some of us forecast, to be a good deal more advantageous to the Republic of Ireland than ourselves. Whereas in 1966 the balance of trade between the two countries was more or less equal, in 1967 the United Kingdom had an adverse balance of about £28 million.
We observe, also, that the way in which the agreement has worked has done a good deal of harm to our farmers, especially livestock fanners. We are not altogether surprised to find the results unsatisfactory, because the agreement was reached as a result of one of the interventions of the Prime Minister in the days when he was more addicted to instant Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we cannot discuss the free trade agreement with Eire except as it is affected by the Order.

Mr. Blaker: I note what you say, Mr. Speaker, and hope to comply with your Ruling.
I was observing that the Order says that no import duties will be charged on goods coming from the Republic of Ireland, so that it contains that general clause in it which is presumably intended to give effect to the free trade agreement. Apart from the general effect, it has a particular effect in relation to hops, and its result is to exempt Irish hops from import duty.
I hope that the Minister will tell us something about the significance of this exemption, because I find information on this subject rather sparse. I understand that Ireland has recently begun to cultivate hops, which it has not done in the past. I understand that the growth of hops there is not very great, but I suppose it could expand, especially if it were found advantageous as a result of this agreement.
I also understand that Ireland imports a great deal of hops from the United States, that there is a world surplus of hops at present, and that cheap hops are on offer from the United States generally. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that he is satisfied that the arrangements which will be made for certification will be such that there will be no danger of hops from the United States coming to this country under the guise of Irish hops.
As the Minister said, that Order is important. It consolidates, it effects some simplifications of the tariff, and it eliminates certain tariff headings. I welcome those moves, which are desirable. It would be surprising if none of them gave any inconvenience to anybody, but I am not aware of any substantial criticisms so far, apart from those which the Minister mentioned, of these changes.
But the most important change made by the Order is in giving effect to the first slice of the reductions which we have agreed to make in the Kennedy Round. The Minister outlined the great scope and magnitude of these reductions. The Order puts into effect 40 per cent. of the reductions which we shall eventually be obliged to make. If my figures are correct, this Order alone effects, in general and on the average, a reduction of 14 per cent. in our industrial tariffs, and I understand that the cuts cover about eight-ninths of those industrial imports which are now paying the full rate of tariff.
The Financial Times said that when the Kennedy Round cuts are complete we shall have seen
the end of the era of high tariff protection for the greater part of British industry.
I do not know whether I would go as far as that, because our tariffs will still be higher than those of the United States and the Common Market. But it is certainly true, I think, that the Kennedy Round represents the biggest round of tariff cuts in which Britain has ever taken part.
As we have made clear, we support the Kennedy Round and the Government's action. We have previously congratulated the Government on the success of the Kennedy Round, and I repeat those congratulations. I pay tribute, rather belatedly, but we have not previously debated this subject, important though it


may be, to the skill and perseverance of the British team which engaged in these negotiations, which commenced in 1963 under the previous Conservative Government. We support the Government because we believe that Britain must benefit from freer trade, and especially freer trade in manufactures since we export more manufactures than we import.
It is also true that the Kennedy Round reductions assume greater importance in the aftermath of devaluation. Whether devaluation was right or wrong, or whether it was forced on us, it is now a fact, and it seems clear that we should be in a stronger position to take advantage of the growth of world trade which should result from the Kennedy Round.
There are obviously certain things about the agreement achieved last summer which one regrets. We regret that it was not possible to cut the tariff on lorries and tractors, which would have been of great value to this country. It was regrettable that it was not possible in the negotiations to persuade other developed countries to increase their quotas of textile imports. Perhaps the Minister would say something about any recent developments on that front. Paragraph 24 of the White Paper said that in separate discussions the United States and the Common Market have agreed to substantial increases in their import quotas on cotton textiles. This was in July last year, and the House would be interested to know of anything which has occurred since then.
We regret that it was not possible to persuade the Americans to abandon the wine gallon method of assessment of duties on imported alcoholic beverages. We regret that more was not achieved in the Kennedy Round negotiations or at the meetings of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development to help the trade of the developing countries, but we note the statement of the Minister about our acceleration in that connection. However, one must accept that in negotiations of this kind it is never possible to get all one wants. One must be content with the best bargain one can obtain. We on this side of the House warmly welcome the bargain made in June last year.
I wish to put three questions to the Minister. He mentioned that different groups of countries have adopted different approaches to timing their cuts in accordance with the options open to them. Can he say what steps are being taken by other countries to implement their obligations? Are the principal countries concerned proceeding at the speed at which we might hope they would be going forward? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress being made towards implementing the first cuts agreed in Geneva?
The second question concerns chemicals. The House will remember that this was one of the most difficult aspects of the negotiations in the Kennedy Round and that the package which resulted was a complicated one. It involved two parts. The first was an agreement on the reduction in certain chemical duties. There is no complication about that. But the second part was an agreement about the passage by the United States Government of legislation to abolish the American selling price system of valuation relating to chemicals and to make certain other reductions in tariffs, in return for which the other parties to the agreement made other concessions.
This agreement was embodied in a memorandum, published in the White Paper, which, I understand, cannot enter into force until after the United States legislation is passed. But it also cannot enter into force later than 1st January 1969, unless all the parties agree to a postponement of the date of entry into force. It seems, therefore, that there is a danger that, if the American legislation is not passed this year, this agreement might lapse. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House how matters stand on that subject?
I come now to my third question. It would be useful to the House if the Minister could give some indication of how long this tariff is likely to last. This is what I mean. According to the protocol, the next cut which the United Kingdom is obliged to make must take place on 1st January, 1970. However, as the House will recall, the Government made an offer on 14th March this year to accelerate our cuts, so that the whole of them would be made at the beginning of next year.
That offer was accompanied by certain provisos: that the other E.F.T.A. countries, the common market countries and Japan, did the same; that the United States Government would not introduce restrictive trade measures; and that the United States Government would proceed as quickly as hitherto contemplated with their own Kennedy Round cuts and with the abolition of the American selling price system for chemicals. This was an important offer which we welcomed at the time as a constructive initiative and which we recognised was intended to ward off the real danger of reversal of the trend towards free trade and the beginning of a cycle of competitive trade restrictions.
The Government are not blameless in the past for having set precedents for restrictive attitudes towards international trade and payments. But this time I think that they were right in thinking in terms of expansion rather than restriction, in thinking of opening the windows towards freer trade, and not battening down the shutters. That sort of attitude was right, because it generated confidence rather than weakening it.
There are certain disadvantages. The immediate benefits, if this proposal were adopted, would go to the United States, not to ourselves, and our own producers would be faced with an acceleration of the Kennedy Round cuts which would all take place next year rather than culminating in 1972. But I think that the Government took the right view: that when compared with the consequences which could follow for ourselves and for the world if the Americans adopted a restrictive attitude, which would be little short of disastrous, the disadvantages of the course proposed by the Government should be accepted.
Since that offer, I understand that the Common Market countries have made an offer also. It was not quite as forthcoming as the British and E.F.T.A. offer but it was substantial. There the matter has remained stuck. The efforts of the Secretary-General for G.A.T.T. to find a solution have not, as far as I am aware, succeeded. These are delicate and important matters affecting the whole future of the Kennedy Round. If things went wrong, if the wrong course was taken by the principal Western trading coun-

tries, all the progress which we hoped to see from that agreement reached last year could be undone. I hope that the Minister can throw some light on the present situation and bring the House up to date.

1.16 a.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This Order, bringing into effect the Kennedy Round negotiations, is one of the big steps forward in international trading for a long time. We have had a year of crisis in international trading matters—the devaluation of sterling which rocked the international market, the gold crisis and the very sad failure of the U.N.C.T.A.D. negotiations in New Delhi. Here, at least, is a very bright step forward, one which everyone concerned for the future of world trading will welcome.
I have a small personal interest, because I watched some of these negotiations, very much from the sidelines, and I echo the tributes paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) to the British delegation. These were very arduous negotiations over a long period, with many difficulties. There was a time when many wondered whether the Kennedy Round could succeed. There were moments of crisis and frustration, but finally a general triumph.
I have some points, technical, specific and general to raise. I understand that the reductions of tariff to take place will be in five equal instalments. There is a choice between the various signatories of the method by which they can do this. If I understand the Minister correctly, we have adopted the second method while the Americans have adopted the first. What reasons led to this?
My second technical point concerns a specific statement in the Order that there shall be no charge on goods brought to this country from the Irish Republic. My interest in this is not to do with hops, but rather to do with cattle. In my constituency there is a well-known cattle market and a number of fanners have been concerned about the large scale importation of Irish calves. The Minister of State may say that the Order will not affect that one way or the other, but he will realise that this is a matter of anxiety.
Two questions arise from the massive Schedules to the Order. I realise that an international agreement has been reached, but why is it still necessary for us to stand on tariffs which are still so high? If the Minister will consult Chapter 31, governing fertilisers, he will see that many of the tariffs which we still apply to imported chemical fertilisers are 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. I accept that there is an international agreement, but there is nothing which says that our tariffs cannot be lower. While I do not want to argue against the case some of our fertiliser manufacturers could make for these levels of protection, representing an agricultural constituency, I can see no reason why we should stand on such levels. Perhaps there is a good reason, which the Minister will give us.
My other question concerns Chapter 36, dealing with the importation of explosives. I hope that we import very little explosives—I am sure that we make our own. Why do we still stand at the level of a 16 per cent. tariff on percussion detonating caps, 16 per cent. on mining, blasting and safety fuses? Surely this is the kind of equipment which we want to import without tariffs?
My first general question concerns the likely future of the Kennedy Round agreements. My hon. Friend said that having achieved this step forward, we were entering a stage in which our hopes for further reductions must depend in large measure on the changing sentiment in the United States. For better or worse, we may face a rise in the protectionist spirit of Congress. This arises for many reasons, partly because of the run on gold, partly because the Americans feel that they are carrying many of the world's burdens, and not always being helped by their allies.
Whatever the reasons, there is a real possibility of protectionism in the American Congress. If this is so, and if simultaneously, we see economic policies not succeeding in Britain or Europe, then this bright prospect opened by the success of the Kennedy Round could be jeopardised. Does the Minister think that this is a real danger, and how does he see the British Government approaching the problem of keeping the momentum going;, and moving towards freer trade?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I do not think that can be debated on this Order.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have put a number of questions, and will not press that point. I know that the Minister will realise that the point is very germane.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Dell: It is interesting to note that there have been so many questions from sparsely populated a House. I welcome the general attitude of the House towards the Order, which represents the results of the Kennedy Round. This is not the time to discuss the merits or otherwise of the Anglo-Irish free trade area. Hon. Members opposite have doubts about some effects of that free trade area, but some of their doubts are in conflict with their views on other matters.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) wants tariffs reduced wherever his constituents are consumers, and raised wherever his constituents are producers. This is an inconsistent attitude, and ignores the fact that in all tariff negotiations we have to come to an agreement with our industrial partners in the world and get something which is mutually acceptable. This is the object of the Kennedy Round.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Minister not aware that in the agreement the Irish received the benefit of free entry for a great many of their goods at once, whereas the benefit to us was spread over a number of years?

Mr. Dell: I am perfectly aware that this was a provision in the agreement. Nevertheless, it is difficult to argue, not only in relation to the Anglo-Irish free trade area, but generally, that tariffs should be reduced on those things particular constituents consume and raised on those things particular constituents produce.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: With great respect, there is no reason to import into the debate acrimony which does not belong here. I was not asking for a general lowering of tariffs in a particular direction. I welcome the reduction of tariffs. I only ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that there is a problem which has to be met. I do not in any


way dissent from the desire to reduce tariffs on everything.

Mr. Dell: We all welcome the result of the Kennedy Round and its general effect of significantly reducing tariffs into the country.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) raised the question of hops, and it might be helpful if I said exactly what the position will be in respect of hops. Hops will only be entitled to entry free of duty if they are grown in the Irish Republic. Hop oil and hop extracts will only be entitled to free entry if they are manufactured in the Republic, and not less than 25 per cent. of the cost of manufacture is attributable to expenditure within the Anglo-Irish free trade area. This was agreed as part of the free trade area agreement.
The hon. Gentleman had doubts as to the reliability of certificates of origin. We have no reason to doubt that certificates of origin issued in the Irish Republic are other than reliable. He regretted the failure to reach an agreement on concessions on lorries and tractors, and that regret is common to both sides of the House. He also regretted the inability to secure abolition of the American wine gallon assessment. This is something we tried to achieve, but we were unsuccessful.
As I said in my introductory speech, we are doing something for the less developed countries. We should have done more, for example, on tropical products, if other developed countries had been prepared to do more. We recognised that if we did more unilaterally this would erode Commonwealth Preference, and, therefore, we were limited in the extent to which we could go.
I question whether the second U.N.C.T.A.D. was a failure. One of the important agreements at U.N.C.T.A.D. related to the proposal for generalised preferences. If this can be brought to fruition, it will be of far greater significance to the underdeveloped countries than anything done in the Kennedy Round.
I was asked three questions by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South. The first was as to what steps are being taken by other countries to implement their

obligations. Twelve countries started on 1st January, 1968. Twenty-one countries, counting the E.E.C. as one, are starting on 1st July, 1968. The programme is going according to plan.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked me why we chose to start with 40 per cent. on 1st July, 1968, with subsequent 20 per cent. reductions on 1st January, 1970, 1971 and 1972, rather than the system adopted by the Americans, who have started on 1st January, 1968. The answer is that this is what is being done by E.E.C, and we wish to keep in step with the Community.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South made a point about chemicals, describing the background situation there which I need not repeat, but asking what was the latest position. I can tell him that it is reported that a Bill is to be introduced into the United States Congress to include provision for the abolition of A.S.P. The hearing before a committee will open on 4th June, and it is expected that the American selling price valuation will be covered by it. So there is some sign of movement on that question.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for St. Edmunds both raised the problem of incipient protectionism which they felt was beginning to appear in the United States. Reference was made to the offer which this country E.F.T.A. and E.E.C. have made in an attempt to avoid that development in the United States. It is a substantial offer which we hope will be of value to the Americans in considering their attitude to the problem. However, this does not arise under the Order. If the offer were to be implemented, a separate order would have to be introduced. Otherwise, the new tariff will continue for the 18 months during which the 40 per cent. reduction will apply, and future orders will be necessary to implement the further reductions as they become due.
With those. few remarks, I hope that the House will be willing to agree to the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Import Duties (General) (No. 4) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 679), dated 30th April, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — A.1 ROAD (GOSFORTH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

1.33 a.m.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: I must apologise for keeping the House, when the business yesterday and a long sitting today have made it necessary for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker, to spend many weary hours in the Chamber. I hope that this debate will go on record as being one of the shortest ever.
The subject before us tonight is that of the A.1 road through Gosforth, which runs through the major part of the Wallsend constituency. The problem has been of paramount importance since the end of the last war. The proposed diversion of this route has had a major effect upon the planning and future policies of the Gosforth Urban District Council.
During this period, the Northumberland County Council, which is the principal planning authority for the area, has also been closely involved in the matter and there are apparent signs that there has been no co-ordination of thinking between the two local authorities and the Ministry of Transport. This is due principally to the difficulty of ascertaining precisely what has been the Ministry's policy over the past few years. I believe that we are entitled to ask tonight what priority has been given to this important section of the A.1 highway.
I appreciate the vast amount of road works which have been carried out in South-East Northumberland, and there is no doubt that these road works have played an important part in the revitalisation of the North-East Region. Nevertheless, there are many people who think that the Ministry has its priorities mixed up, seeing the Morpeth and Alnwick by-passes as desirable projects in themselves but bearing no relation to the problems created in the highly developed area of Gosforth.
It is true that, after intensive efforts by the local authorities, a draft plan for the new trunk road and connecting side roads has been available for inspection by the public during the past three years, but this information and the knowledge

arising from it has created many problems, the principal one being the difficulty people have in selling dwelling-houses and properties affected by what is generally known as planning blight.
I accept that the Ministry made a draft Order in January, 1967, under Section 7 of the Highways Act, 1959, in relation to the route of the proposed diversion, but I regret that no draft Order under Section 9 of the same Act has been made for the side roads. Once again, the lack of evidence of further intended action is causing great concern and anxiety to Gosforth council and local business interests, but above all it is causing concern to the residents of Gosforth. It is essential that the proposed diversion be constructed as soon as possible, and that there be no delay in announcing a clear policy decision.
Such a decision is necessary if the future of the old A.1 route is to be decided within a foreseeable time, possibly within the next three to five years. I know that discussions have taken place on whether it should be used as a shopping precinct. A decision about that should be made as early as possible in order to cause the minimum inconvenience to existing property owners and at the same time allow future owners to plan ahead. My comment here applies also to Gosforth Urban District Council and the Northumberland County Council, for they, too, have a major part to play in approving such plans.
I have no wish to exaggerate the problems, but I wish the House to know that over 200 properties are involved, most of them residential. However, one-third are used for business and other purposes, including civic, religious, educational and recreational interests. The wide variety of interests involved demonstrates how wide is the concern about the apparent lack of initiative on the part of the Ministry of Transport in coming to a definite decision. People's difficulties will grow as the delay in announcing the construction plans for the highway continues.
The Ministry has just given notice of its intention to prohibit parking through the section of the A.1 and the High Street, which is the main shopping centre. Anyone knowing the area—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows it extremely


well—will realise that it is virtually impossible to find sufficient alternative parking facilities for traffic. This is yet another reason for announcing a clear-cut decision as soon as possible.
I hope that in this short debate I have demonstrated the urgency of the traffic problems in this part of my constituency. I trust that my hon. Friend will be able to announce a clear and unequivocal decision. Such an announcement would allay the fears of residents and owners of property affected by the new route and would, at the same time, allow the planning authorities to proceed with clear and precise thinking about the role which Gosforth has in the future of the Tyne-side conurbation.

1.39 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): As a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and as a resident in the Gosforth urban district, I should, in the first place, declare my interest, and say how much I personally appreciate the keen concern which my hon. Friend has shown for the interests of the Gosforth urban district generally, an important part of his constituency, and, in particular the energy and zeal that he has shown on the issue before us.
The A.1 to the north of Newcastle, certainly at this time, does not justify the comprehensive improvement which has now largely been completed between London and Newcastle, but where traffic demands have proved the need improvements have been either programmed or included in the trunk road preparation pool. In addition to the Gosforth bypass, by-passes are to be provided at Wideopen, Seaton Burn, both of which are in my hon. Friend's constituency, Morpeth and Alnwick, all to the north of Newcastle.
My hon. Friend has suggested that we have got our priorities wrong on the question of the Morpeth and Alnwick by-passes and the Gosforth by-pass. My hon. Friend knows that this is my stamping ground as much as it is his. He knows, too, that the situation in these towns is very different from the situation at Gosforth. Very serious congestion occurs at all times in Alnwick and Mor-

peth. We all see this at Morpeth, particularly at holiday weekends when we are on the way home from a day out in the country north of Newcastle. The problem is different in Gosforth High Street, where the same physical obstacles to traffic flow do not exist. It is basically a fairly straight stretch of highway, and the problems there relate to the conflict of through and local traffic, rather than to the severe congestion which exists in Morpeth and Alnwick.
The Gosforth by-pass was included in the trunk road preparation pool announcement on 21st February, 1967. This meant that the design work and statutory procedures could be taken to the point at which a firm decision could be made; work on the schemes in the pool is expected to begin in the early 'seventies. The precise timing depends on the progress made with the preparation, and, more important, on the funds available at the time.
Plans for an alternative road to relieve Gosforth High Street of heavy through traffic have been under consideration for many years. Towards the end of 1962 the Northumberland County Council, of which my hon. Friend was then a member, gave wide publicity to its development plans which included a new line for the A.1. At that time we received a great number of representations from the public, from Members of the House, including the late John McKay, and from the Gosforth Urban District Council. All were told that the proposals made public were purely tentative, and that while publication of the redevelopment plans might have an unsettling effect, this would enable the planning authority to have maximum time in which to take full account of public opinion.
The Minister at the time agreed that publicity rather than secrecy was the right course to follow. Publicity has continued, and so has the correspondence with my hon. Friend, with the Gosforth Council, and with many other interested parties. This is not a bad thing, because ultimately Gosforth will get the improved A.1 on the best possible line. The line ultimately proposed to be adopted, which is to the east of the High Street, was advertised in a draft Section 7 Order, to which my hon. Friend referred, on 7th February 1967, and following the three months' statutory objection period,


which ended on 7th May, 1967, 52 objections to the draft Order had been received. Of those, 26 have been withdrawn, and those outstanding will be taken into account by the Minister in deciding whether a public inquiry is necessary.
My hon. Friend mentioned the progress, or lack of progress, on this scheme, but I emphasise that work is in hand on the preparation of an Order under Section 9 of the Highways Act which will make provision for the necessary alteration to side roads consequent on the diversion, but I regret that at this stage it has not reached the position where a draft Order can be published. We shall, however, press ahead with this as quickly as possible. It would, naturally, be desirable, if there is to be a public inquiry, for it to cover side road proposals at the same time as those for the main road line. Otherwise the inquiry would be a half measure and would be proceeding without the full facts.
My hon. Friend has referred to the factor that must cause the greatest concern to his constituents, namely, the difficulty of selling property affected by the proposals. I want to make it clear that when the statutory Orders have been made, any owner-occupier of a dwelling-house which is affected who fulfils the conditions laid down in Sections 138 to 151 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962 will be able to serve notice on the Minister of Transport requiring him to purchase the property in question. Before that time, no statutory rights to require the Minister to purchase actually exist.
Nevertheless, we are prepared to consider acquisition on a discretionary basis in cases where genuine hardship can be demonstrated. In fact, we have already on this basis purchased no fewer than seven properties affected by the proposed diversion, so that it should be clear to my hon. Friend that the good will of the Ministry is there already.
In passing, I want to assure my hon. Friend that the representations that he has made to my Department about the South Northumberland Cricket Club and his anxiety to preserve this ground will be given due consideration at the appropriate time.
As to the suggestions of uncertainty and delays in town planning decisions, we are fully alive to the situation and to the extent to which local planning decisions hinge upon the decisions we have to make about the road. This reinforces our desire to reach our decisions as quickly as possible. But the most important thing is to ensure that our decisions are the right ones, and this inevitably takes time for a major scheme of this kind, affecting as it does much property—my hon. Friend referred to over 200 properties—and, not least, the consideration of cost.
This scheme will cost somewhere about £2 million, and I am certain that my hon. Friend and, equally, all his constituents, the ratepayers of Gosforth who, as taxpayers, will be called upon to pay the bill for this scheme, would not want a precipitate decision, which was not the long-term right decision, to be arrived at.
My hon. Friend has referred to difficulties arising from the proposed prohibition order. I think that I should set out the facts. The unilateral waiting restrictions have been in force since 1956, but no one knows better than my hon. Friend that since that time traffic has increased enormously along the path of Gosforth High Street. Parked vehicles have become a serious hindrance to traffic and an extreme danger to pedestrians. The High Street is essentially a shopping centre, and our first consideration should be the comfort of the people who go there on legitimate business, including their daily or weekly shopping.
Since some years more must inevitably elapse before through traffic can be diverted, we have advertised an amendment to the present "no waiting" order. The objection period to this amendment does not expire until the 28th of this month. We will, of course, receive objections, and all the objections we receive will have to be given valid consideration, but I feel that the complete removal of parking from Gosforth High Street can only result in the improvement of shopping facilities where the shoppers will not be prone to the hazards of crossing the road between parked vehicles.
I know my hon. Friend could say there is a zebra crossing there which is often controlled by a traffic warden, but, unfortunately, we have not yet reached


the stage where the pedestrians freely accept that they ought to cross at the pedestrian crossing. I am quite certain that so long as this parking does exist on Gosforth High Street they are running a risk to life and limb which could be avoided.
To conclude, although we cannot at this stage give the firm decision for which my hon. Friend is pressing, we are fully seized both of the need for providing a diversion and of the problems caused by the present uncertainty. It is clearly as much in the interests of the Ministry as of any other interests affected

to resolve the uncertainty as soon as we can. We shall make every endeavour to bring the statutory process to a conclusion in the shortest possible time.
I am sorry that at this stage I am not able to go as far as my hon. Friend would wish, but I can assure him that as a resident of the area—one might say with a vested interest and with a full knowledge of the problem—I certainly will not tolerate any dragging of feet in my Department on this scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Two o'clock.